Mandatory Training for OC and CC

[xd shooter]

Remember, i can't detain someone, ie pull them over or stop a pedestrian, without a reasonable suscipicion that a crime has occurred. It can be as simple as speeding or a tail light out but its breaking the law none the less...given that it is a separate charge to conduct a crime while in possession of a firearm (whether its used or not) If a person breaks the law in anway, it gives the officer the right to question the firearm.

Ummm...NO.

http://www.infoplease.com/cig/supreme-court/searching-car-when-youre-stopped-for-speeding.html

When stopped for a speeding violation, you do have the right to refuse to allow your car to be searched for other reasons. You must know about that right. A police officer is not required to warn you of the right before asking for permission to search.

Read more: The Supreme Court: Searching Your Car When You're Stopped for Speeding — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/cig/supre...youre-stopped-for-speeding.html#ixzz1jldInLm7

 

[RyanC1985]

Actually, all of my firearms do not have the serial number in plain view when holstered. The firearm must be seized, for officer safety of course, then the serial number is in plain view. So, your plain view rule does not apply until my property is seized, unlawfully in my view, by you.

Well, unfortunately its not your view, but the view of the courts that matter. Yes, by law, I have the right to take control (not seize which means not giving it back), of the weapon for officer safety while conducting my duties, just like you have the right seize any weapon that comes on your property (except the weapon of an officer who is performing official duties) for your own safety and the safety of your family.

 

[RyanC1985]

Ummm...NO.

http://www.infoplease.com/cig/supreme-court/searching-car-when-youre-stopped-for-speeding.html

I never said I would search the vehcile...I'm talking about weapons in open view. If i see it, I do have the right for officer safety to take control of it until the end of the interaction. Your logic does work with concealed weapons...I can't search without permission for minor offenses...hence the reason so many officers use the phrase "Mind if I search your vehicle

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I never said I would search the vehcile...I'm talking about weapons in open view. If i see it, I do have the right for officer safety to take control of it until the end of the interaction. Your logic does work with concealed weapons...I can't search without permission for minor offenses...hence the reason so many officers use the phrase "Mind if I search your vehicle

Cite. I think you may be a little more limited than you think you are.

Of course those jack rabbits on officer.com think they can make RAS out of anything.

 

[ManInBlack]

Well, unfortunately its not your view, but the view of the courts that matter. Yes, by law, I have the right to take control (not seize which means not giving it back), of the weapon for officer safety while conducting my duties, just like you have the right seize any weapon that comes on your property (except the weapon of an officer who is performing official duties) for your own safety and the safety of your family.

A private citizen cannot seize the weapon of another citizen under any circumstances except in the course of making a lawful arrest. A property owner can ask another person to surrender the weapon or leave the premises. The person then is either free to walk away or to voluntarily comply with the entrance conditions.

I assume you wouldn't allow a citizen to walk away when you attempt to seize his property, would you? That's the difference, jackboot.

 

[RyanC1985]

Cite. I think you may be a little more limited than you think you are.

Of course those jack rabbits on officer.com think they can make RAS out of anything.

For all the curb side lawyers...

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/search_car_speeding.htm

It is unreasonable to make a search of an automobile when the arrest is for a minor traffic violation (like speeding), as a subterfuge for a search for evidence of a serious crime. Yet, the many automobile exceptions are based on the lower expectation to the right of privacy in a car versus a home and the fact that cars are mobile and evidence can be more readily disposed.

In addition, while it might seem unfair, an officer is allowed to search a car based on a pretext. This means that if you look suspicious to the officer, he can find any reason to pull you over, then look for probable cause while he talks to you on the side of the road. The Supreme Court has stated that it doesn't matter how flimsy the initial stop was, if the officer then has probable cause, the resulting search is legal.

There is always the "officer safety" exception as well. If the officer says he saw you bend over as if to hide something under the seat and that he feared it was a gun, then he would be upheld by most judges as reasonably protecting his own safety during the speeding stop. If so, any drugs he found instead would be legally used against you.

http://www.texasdefenselaw.com/texas-criminal-law-guide/pretrial/when-police-can-search-your-car/

The automobile exception to the warrant requirement has two parts:

1. If the police have probable cause that the car contains something illegal like a prohibited weapon or drugs, then they may search the car. Or if the police have probable cause that the car contains the tools used to commit a crime or the proceeds or evidence of a crime, then they may search the car.

Under this part of the exception, the officer can only search the part of the car where what he is looking for may be found.

So if a police officer pulls a driver over for speeding and smells marijuana, he may search the entire car for the drug, including any containers like cups or purses. But if he has probable cause to believe that you have an assault rifle in the car, he could only search where the gun could be hidden and not, say, in a thermos.

2. If an officer makes a lawful arrest of the driver of the car, he may make a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of the car. This search includes the glove compartment but not the trunk.

Note: an officer may always search your car without a warrant if you consent to the search. Sometimes police will pose the question with the implication that you do not have the legal right to refuse. However, you can refuse to consent.

Unlawfully Carrying a Weapon – Texas Penal Code Section 46.02

In 2007, the Legislature made an important change to this Texas law. A person in Texas may now carry a handgun in their car if he meets certain requirements.

The requirements are: the handgun cannot be in plain view; the person cannot be engaged in any criminal activity, the person cannot be prohibited from carrying a weapon by any other law; the person cannot be a member a criminal street gang.

The overall effect of this law is that many Texans can now carry a concealed firearm in their vehicle without a concealed handgun license.



https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/warrantlessStop and frisk searches. The police can stop you on the street and perform a limited "pat-down" search or "frisk" — this means they can feel around your outer clothing for concealed weapons.

The police don't need probable cause to stop and frisk you, but they do at least need to have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on specific facts. This is a very low standard, though, and the courts usually give the police a lot of leeway. For example, if a police officer is suspicious that you're carrying a concealed weapon based on the shape of a lump under your jacket or the funny way that you're walking, that's usually enough.

If, while patting you down, a police officer feels something that he reasonably believes is a weapon or an illegal item, the officer can reach into your clothes and seize that item.


I can do more if you like...but its getting rather long of a post

 

[RyanC1985]

A private citizen cannot seize the weapon of another citizen under any circumstances except in the course of making a lawful arrest. A property owner can ask another person to surrender the weapon or leave the premises. The person then is either free to walk away or to voluntarily comply with the entrance conditions.

I assume you wouldn't allow a citizen to walk away when you attempt to seize his property, would you? That's the difference, jackboot.

Sure, as soon, as my field investigation was over. Again, its not seizing to take control of a weapon until the terry stop is over...its only considered seizure if its not given back if the individual isn't charged with anything.

 

[MKEgal]

Nationwide standardization would mean putting it in the hands of the Feds.

There is a national standard, but no governmental entity sticks by it any more... it is "shall not be infringed"

BINGO!
The way I understand it, every state swore to accept the US Constitution as they entered the Union.
The vast majority which are infringing 2A are commiting federal crimes.

Can you cite (court case with conviction, that was upheld if appealed) one instance where a person (other than Law enforcement) has ever been convicted of committing a felony while Open Carrying a pistol in a proper holster?

I'm not a LEO, but I know there have been cases of a citizen acting in self-defense [carrying openly] who's been wrongfully convicted of murder, manslaughter, etc.
One here in WI was convicted late last year.
Search Jesus Gonzalez over on the WI forum.

...the middle of the road approach would be to find ways to encourage gun carriers to become proficient... without going as far as to make it mandatory. Any suggestions on how to accomplish this?

Ask Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Indiana...
(All the states with either Constitutional Carry or no training required for a cc license. There are more; those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head.)
Whatever they're doing seems to be working for them.

I would be careful about not answering a simple question because it cause the officer to become more suspicious.

Again, how is the peaceful exercise of a protected civil right "suspicious" or grounds for suspicion of anything?
If it's not suspicious to wear a cross [1A freedom of religion], or to play basketball with friends [1A freedom of assembly], how is it suspicious to remain silent [5A] or bear arms [2A]?

Just take the time to inform or educate

Isn't that what departments have training officers for?
And aren't civil rights covered in whatever school makes someone a LEO?

officer don't stop people simply ruin their day

You're kinda new here... yes, in the experience of way too many people here on OCDO, some officers do indeed harass citizens just because they think they can get away with it. When the intended victim is carrying a video &/or audio recorder, their actions frequently result in losing a civil rights suit.
Trouble is, it's impossible to tell by sight the difference between the good sort, who upholds the law & the oath s/he took, and the bad sort, which ignores them.

Had a good one last summer when my house was burgled:
"Is that a pistol?"
Yes.
"Oh. Just making sure."
And that was it.
Mind you, this was at about 3am, under a streetlight in the front of my house.

He might want to run the gun's serial number to ensure it isn't stolen, but there's nothing wrong with that
... Its routine police procedure.

If I'm doing nothing wrong there's no reason for me to let any gov't agent access, handle, "check out" any of my property.
I don't care how 'routine' it is, or if it's carved in stone in the dep't manual.

Everytime I pull someone over I run the tag and registration of the vehicle to ensure its not stolen.

That's after you've already seen them doing something you think is illegal.
We're talking about the equivalent of being at the park with your kids & being forced to submit to an ID check to be sure you haven't kidnapped the kids - no RAS, no PC, just people behaving normally & peacefully in a public place.

Its a two mintue procedure that can be done without even disarming the individual...
Plain view doctrine says if the officer can view it, it does not meet the requirements of unreasonble search or seizure.

Not with my guns, & I don't care how short a time it takes to commit the crime, it's still against the 4A.
The one pistol that the serial # could be seen while in a holster, it's covered to prevent just such a problem. No way it's in "plain sight", & if the tape is removed it's clearly & obviously a search, so there'd better be a warrant.

And the 'officer safety' line is worn to the point of being threadbare. Professionals who keep up with research in their field would know that the FBI found that criminals don't carry openly & practically never use holsters.
[Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers
Pinizzotto et. al., AUG06]

Ergo, someone carrying a pistol openly in a holster is very unlikely to be a criminal.

... the pawn shop is required to keep a registry of all gun sales, the officer then checks and confirms that the gun carrier indeed bought the firearm fromt he pawn shop and is cleared of any wrong doing.

Except it doesn't work that way.
The arresting officer isn't going to call & clear things up right there.
The innocent citizen would still be arrested & have legal fees.
Hopefuly the pawn shop which received stolen property would be charged with that crime AND have to refund the money.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

snip...

For all the curb side lawyers...

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/search_car_speeding.htm

I give free advice off the internet the same value that I paid for it. Nothing.

 

[Dreamer]

Actually, all of my firearms do not have the serial number in plain view when holstered. The firearm must be seized, for officer safety of course, then the serial number is in plain view. So, your plain view rule does not apply until my property is seized, unlawfully in my view, by you.

In most jurisdictions, and under Federal law, covering your serial numbers on a handgun with electrical tape does NOT qualify as "defacing or obscuring", and is 100% legal. An LEO removing this tape would CLEARLY constitute an illegal search, AND would clearly show that they had tampered with your "seal".

Some of the more feudalistic serfdoms like MD or CA may differ with state or local ordinances, however, so study your local laws...

 

[William Fisher]

In post #121 the way the quote boxes pan out, it looks like the statement about officers sleeping in patrol cars was made by me. That was not my post.

 

[Aknazer]

SNIP
https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/warrantlessStop and frisk searches. The police can stop you on the street and perform a limited "pat-down" search or "frisk" — this means they can feel around your outer clothing for concealed weapons.

The police don't need probable cause to stop and frisk you, but they do at least need to have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on specific facts. This is a very low standard, though, and the courts usually give the police a lot of leeway. For example, if a police officer is suspicious that you're carrying a concealed weapon based on the shape of a lump under your jacket or the funny way that you're walking, that's usually enough.

If, while patting you down, a police officer feels something that he reasonably believes is a weapon or an illegal item, the officer can reach into your clothes and seize that item.

As you stated, they need RAS. From here it is going to depend on state laws in regards to printing and what not, but if it is lawful to CC in one's state and a cop were to use the "I suspected a lump was a gun" I doubt it would hold muster (again, this will depend on the laws regarding printing in the state); and stopping an OCer is going to be even harder to prove RAS (though yes I know that cops can effectively lie and come up with something after-the-fact to cover their own butts and get away with an unlawful stop). So barring laws that make it illegal to print (but even then a "lump" would be dubious at best; especially if the person brought pictures showing what they were wearing and how the "lump" truely looked), you run into the issue that is the same as checking stopping someone simply to see if they have a DL. How? Because it is illegal to drive w/o a DL or insurance but yet you can't stop and check DL/insurance unless another crime has been committed. Likewise one can't simply stop an OC/CCer because they notice a gun and check to see if they have a permit to carry unless you have RAS that another crime has been committed.

Also if you saw me OCing and stopped me to chat (no laws broken and not a detainment) I would NOT agree to letting you run my serial number. To do so would be to willfully waive my 4A rights, and for you to force me to allow you to run it would be a violation of my 4A rights; not to mention you could very quickly turn it into an unlawful detainment.

But of course with all of this you have to have a lawyer who truely knows the laws and wants to help you (so most likely not a public defender); as opposed to a lawyer that is just going to try and get you to plea down to a lesser charge. And should it be ruled that you don't have RAS to make the initial stop then anything found as a result of that stop could be thrown out in court as it is effectively fruit from the forbidden tree (aka it was gained only by violating the accused's 4A rights).

There is always the "officer safety" exception as well. If the officer says he saw you bend over as if to hide something under the seat and that he feared it was a gun, then he would be upheld by most judges as reasonably protecting his own safety during the speeding stop. If so, any drugs he found instead would be legally used against you.

Thank god for dash cams and being able to FOIA that to help show that the cop is BSing.

 

[Aknazer]

I would be careful about not answering a simple question because it cause the officer to become more suspicious. Also, an officer doesn't need probably cause to conduct a terry stop or field investigation, only RS. Just take the time to inform or educate...officer don't stop people simply ruin their day, it is often genuine concern. Simply state its according to state law its lawful for me to open carry and its for personal protection and you shouldn't have a problem. He might want to run the gun's serial number to ensure it isn't stolen, but there's nothing wrong with that...infact, if you've every had a gun stolen you would appreciate an officer's due diligence to ensure that someone else is walking around with your gun attached to their hip.

At which point you ask what their RAS is (or don't) and try to leave. Should they try to stop you it is now a detainment which you can take to court and put the cop in the hotseat. If one has a recording of the stop it can help to further poke holes in any weak RAS the cop might have come up with after-the-fact (this is assuming he doesn't have a legitimate RAS to stop you). Also it is not my job to educate the cop and I likely would not trust them as I don't know the cop and he could be fishing (and even if he isn't why do I want to take that chance?). I mean how are you supposed to uphold and defend the law if you don't properly know the law and a non-attorney has to explain it to you? Not to mention that this can make the cop mad as you are now questioning his knowledge of the law and can lead to him looking for something else to charge you with. Also while he might want to run the SN until he has a warrant or seizes my gun (even if you give it back you have seized the gun for that time) I'm not going to let him, and thanks to being a lefty my SN isn't in plain view on my gun.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

For all the curb side lawyers...

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/search_car_speeding.htm

It is unreasonable to make a search of an automobile when the arrest is for a minor traffic violation (like speeding), as a subterfuge for a search for evidence of a serious crime. Yet, the many automobile exceptions are based on the lower expectation to the right of privacy in a car versus a home and the fact that cars are mobile and evidence can be more readily disposed.

In addition, while it might seem unfair, an officer is allowed to search a car based on a pretext. This means that if you look suspicious to the officer, he can find any reason to pull you over, then look for probable cause while he talks to you on the side of the road. The Supreme Court has stated that it doesn't matter how flimsy the initial stop was, if the officer then has probable cause, the resulting search is legal.

There is always the "officer safety" exception as well. If the officer says he saw you bend over as if to hide something under the seat and that he feared it was a gun, then he would be upheld by most judges as reasonably protecting his own safety during the speeding stop. If so, any drugs he found instead would be legally used against you.

http://www.texasdefenselaw.com/texas-criminal-law-guide/pretrial/when-police-can-search-your-car/

The automobile exception to the warrant requirement has two parts:

1. If the police have probable cause that the car contains something illegal like a prohibited weapon or drugs, then they may search the car. Or if the police have probable cause that the car contains the tools used to commit a crime or the proceeds or evidence of a crime, then they may search the car.

Under this part of the exception, the officer can only search the part of the car where what he is looking for may be found.

So if a police officer pulls a driver over for speeding and smells marijuana, he may search the entire car for the drug, including any containers like cups or purses. But if he has probable cause to believe that you have an assault rifle in the car, he could only search where the gun could be hidden and not, say, in a thermos.

2. If an officer makes a lawful arrest of the driver of the car, he may make a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of the car. This search includes the glove compartment but not the trunk.

Note: an officer may always search your car without a warrant if you consent to the search. Sometimes police will pose the question with the implication that you do not have the legal right to refuse. However, you can refuse to consent.

Unlawfully Carrying a Weapon – Texas Penal Code Section 46.02

In 2007, the Legislature made an important change to this Texas law. A person in Texas may now carry a handgun in their car if he meets certain requirements.

The requirements are: the handgun cannot be in plain view; the person cannot be engaged in any criminal activity, the person cannot be prohibited from carrying a weapon by any other law; the person cannot be a member a criminal street gang.

The overall effect of this law is that many Texans can now carry a concealed firearm in their vehicle without a concealed handgun license.



https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/warrantlessStop and frisk searches. The police can stop you on the street and perform a limited "pat-down" search or "frisk" — this means they can feel around your outer clothing for concealed weapons.

The police don't need probable cause to stop and frisk you, but they do at least need to have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on specific facts. This is a very low standard, though, and the courts usually give the police a lot of leeway. For example, if a police officer is suspicious that you're carrying a concealed weapon based on the shape of a lump under your jacket or the funny way that you're walking, that's usually enough.

If, while patting you down, a police officer feels something that he reasonably believes is a weapon or an illegal item, the officer can reach into your clothes and seize that item.


I can do more if you like...but its getting rather long of a post

I always find it humorous when non lawyers quip about "arm chair" lawyers.

Not the case in Washington pretext stops are unconstitutional....http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1440459.html

http://law.justia.com/cases/washington/court-of-appeals-division-iii/2011/281922-opn-doc.html

Um because I have a lump in my jacket isn't enough unless you have other exigent circumstances that you can reasonably articulate. And civil pretext infractions don't count in my state.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1329012.html

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1144195.html

Just because you have some people who don't have money to fight these stops don't make them legal.

Hmmm, you might wanna study up on your own states laws..

http://wvcriminaldefenseattorney.wordpress.com/category/searches-and-seizures/


.

 

[rotorhead]

Ryan, I think you're doing a good job here. You're presenting your side of the issues very well and for the most part, respectfully.

Personally, I'm glad an LEO is here presenting their opinions and trying, at least, to fit right in with other gun owners on that level. Some may see the "big badge" sign over your head and use it as an avenue to vent and others may not. It's the nature of the beast, so to speak. I'd rather deal with the LEOs here simply as fellow gun owners and define them by our mutual interest in that than define them by their chosen profession. Sadly, there are some that simply cannot let it go at that, and there's a certain part of the population who are simply not going to allow for that lol.

Obviously, there are going to be differences in opinions as well as citations from all over the many states. In the natural course of conversation, some of these things get very specific and often times confusing. I would hope that all posters would do their best to understand the dynamics of such topics and understand that different laws are in effect in different jurisdictions, while also respecting the nature of federal laws and cases which affect these procedures.

But, and I'm simply observing now, when you use terms like "curb side lawyers", you're going to set of brush fires. Just sayin'...

When you use terms like that I guess we can assume that you've passed the bar exam in your state and are actively working as an attorney. That is the case, right?

If not, then I'd ask that you don't attempt to brush aside other people's knowledge like that. Some of us are simple helicopter mechanics with an interest in self-presevation. Meaning, we like to stay informed of current and past laws concerning gun ownership, as well as the establishment of case law and legal precedent as they apply. Others, however, actually do have their law degrees and are actively working as lawyers.

It's pretty simple, really. If you don't like people assuming that you are a statist pig robot who mindlessly brutalizes innocent citizens with your night stick, then others don't like to be denigrated and have their knowledge dismissed while being described as "curb side lawyers".

Other than that, I do wish to convey my thanks to you for your chosen profession. There's many who appreciate LEOs who do their jobs well. I also am glad you're here as a fellow gun enthusiast. In that regard I think you'll find this a decent enough place.

Don't worry about the ones who are going to come at you simply for being an LEO. The ignore feature works pretty well here if you haven't used it yet.

 

[OC for ME]

Whoa, whoa, whoa...I never said anything about assuming a carrier has stolen anything. <snip>

Your post - #129
Your post - #133 How can you run the serial number of my firearm without disarming me?
Your post - #135
your post - #140

Your justification to run a serial number is based on the presumption that the firearm is stolen, whether or not the carrier is the person who stole the firearm. So, all firearms are stolen until proven otherwise. If the presumption is that the firearm is not stolen, why run the serial number?

You seem to believe that you are doing the public a service by ensuring that a citizen has not inadvertently come into possession of a stolen firearm via lawful means. See your post #133, last sentence. I do not question your motives, I question your methods. If your methods run afoul of a citizens rights then your motives are irrelevant.

There is an old axiom which I shall attempt to paraphrase. "Many a foul deed has been accomplished with the best of intentions."

RyanC1985 - post #140: <snip> given that it is a separate charge to conduct a crime while in possession of a firearm (whether its used or not) <snip>

Can I be charged with a weapons violation for going one MPH over the posted speed limit? If this charge can be applied (added) to an infraction, my example, please cite the statute.

In the context of a stop by a LEO, if I have not voluntarily relinquished my property, my property has been seized, even if it has been seized for officer safety. So, you can only possess my property by seizing my property, I would never voluntarily relinquished my property. A LEO could not be charged with armed robbery, RSMo 569.020, if he disarms me (see the bold test above). Whether or not the seizure is/was legal will be determined later, by a judge.

As to the 'bad apple' analogy. Yes, one bad apple can spoil the whole barrel. The issue when using this analogy to describe LE is that a barrel full of good apples are not able to remove the bad apple from the barrel. LE has no such limitation.

Here is a little tidbit for those who continue to cling to the notion that LEOs can not know all the laws, which I agree with, yet disagree with where the mere possession of a firearm is concerned. RSMo 562.031

If you ever get the opinion of a LEO....get it in writing.

 

[Dreamer]

Can I be charged with a weapons violation for going one MPH over the posted speed limit? If this charge can be applied (added) to an infraction, my example, please cite the statute.

A good defense lawyer who understands the TRUE language of the Law would argue "No".

First of all, speeding is NOT a "crime". It is an "infraction" or a "violation" of non-statutory "criminal code" in almost all jurisdictions.

Therefore, any "evidence" siezed during a speeding stop that can be seized under Criminal Statute as "siezable during the commission of a crime" is exempt, and not admissible, and was illegally seized.

Charging someone with a gun crime because they were legally carrying while committing a traffic violation would be like charging someone with "drug possession" because they had been to the pharmacy and had their tetracycline prescription in the car when they were pulled over for a busted taol light.

Any LEO who thinks they can get away with this sort of legal shenanigans should be stripped of their badge and subjected to a lengthy battery of psychological testing, because anyone who thinks that they could get away with this sort of foolishness is a deranges sociopath on a power trip, is a danger to public safety, and is a threat to the very foundations of our Democratic Republic...

I certainly hope "RyanC1985" isn't one of those types...

 

[Dreamer]

Whoa, whoa, whoa...I never said anything about assuming a carrier has stolen anything. Its routine police procedure. Everytime I pull someone over I run the tag and registration of the vehicle to ensure its not stolen.

You know as well as I that the ONLY way to determine is a VEHICLE is stolen is to run the VIN, which LEOs DO NOT do as part of a routine traffic stop.

Running tags and registration ONLY checks to see if the tags and registration are current and valid, and if they match up to th edriver, or whatever story the driver has to explain possession of said vehicle.

The only stolen items that will be revealed by running tags and registration are the tags and registration card themselves.

So unless you are actually looking at the VIN tag on the car's chassis, there is simply no definitive way to determine whether any particular car i stolen or not by the paperwork and tags contained therein...

 

[OC for ME]

....may arrest on view, and without a warrant, any person the officer sees violating or who such officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated any law of this state, including a misdemeanor or infraction, or has violated any ordinance over which such officer has jurisdiction..... http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes\c500-599\5440000216.htm

I think many states have similar language.

 

[hermannr]

Ryan: Somewhat simular to another post, but for the timing.

Personally, I think firearm safety training should be taught in grade school, as well as a basic introduction to the law and constitution.

When I was a kid, schools (mostly highschools, but sometimes lower) had rifle teams that competed like football and wrestling squads compete today. This included in the cities. Not every school was lucky enough to have a range in the basement, (or attic)but some did. When those kids were old enough to carry a pistol, they already knew safety...and safety, and the law is what you need