An interesting read on how some in law enforcement see us.
https://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/2144601-Dealing-with-citizens-legally-carrying-a-concealed-weapon/

interesting read

Great insight.

Very good article.  Thanks for sharing.

This guy sounds like he only begrudgingly accepts civilian CCW but deep down thinks only cops should be armed.  Oh those poor peasants, they do try don't they?  I really hope that's not the common attitude of law enforcement toward armed citizens.

For the most part a good article and yes.... there are a number of law enforcement officials that are anti CCW. Some feel that guns should only be for them. But the times are changing and the movement is still gaining ground.

It did, didn't it.

So far I suppose I have ben lucky with my few encounters, when asked about how they feel about the topic, they have all said something along the lines of "We can't be everywhere at once, I think so long as the person is reasonable and responsible it's great!"

I must have missed that part.

Sounded pretty reasonable to me.

It sounds like he struggles with it, but would still feel safer if CCW didn't exist.  I always love the notion of "but you don't know who's carrying."  As if any law will stop a criminal.

of course he would feel safer if CCW didn't exist, because then he doesn't have to take time to distinguish "Citizens" from "Felons."  He could just treat every peasant with a gun as a "Felon."

I appreciate the points he is making, but yes he does give off the vibe of, "Oh, those CCW citizens, they are so cute, they try so hard, aren't they precious."

The funny thing about many of the LEO's around my area is that either they are truly professional and are always aware of their surroundings covertly, or they are completely oblivious and are in complete "reaction" mode. While the article is insightful and I don't get the notion that the author is anti-ccw, I also don't think that LEO's are out profiling everyone who pulls their pants up when they get up from sitting, wears an unzipped jacket or "hiking boots". I could be wrong, I'm not an officer, but the one's I've observed in local coffee shops, grocery stores, etc. all seem to be pretty focussed on their task at hand and never even glance in my direction.

One instance in particular was a uniformed officer at a table at the coffee shop, I came to his table to present him with a gift card for being a cop in today's political climate. He didn't notice me until I pulled up the seat across the table to him which slightly startled him. I gave him the card, thanked him for his service, we had a delightful conversation and I went about my day. Not once did he mention whether or not he thought I was carrying a 9mm tucked into my pants, perhaps he knew but figured if I'm giving him a gift card why the hell would I be breaking any laws. Who knows.

We live in a good, upscale part of town with a low crime rate, doesn't mean it doesn't happen which is why we all carry right? However, perhaps it's this suburban environment that allows the LEO's to relax more than they would in other areas and they would likely assume that if you are exhibiting some of the signs of concealed carry you are most likely legally doing so and why make a scene. Maybe if I was in the hood so-to-speak, but my manner of dress at that point would give me away as not being "hood" haha.

At the end of the day, every LEO is different. From the one's that are now wearing plate carriers on the outside with tactical pants tucked into their boots, to the more traditional old fashioned variety with their shirts tucked in and hat on, they are all different. Personally I find LEOs with their shirts tucked in and uniforms well pressed to be the least intimidating and if given the choice which to strike up a conversation with, I prefer the "old fashioned" uniformed officer. Though I have met quite a few "tactical" cops who have all been incredibly kind and non-threatening, they still look the role.

I appreciate the insights in the article, but this was my takeaway as well.  Pat on the head, pat on the rump, "Go on, now, you cute little scamp!"

First, the author of the article is Ron Avery.  For those that don't know he's an outstanding firearms trainer.  He doesn't sugar coat anything and is always direct to the point.  Second, it's obvious this article was written strictly for a law enforcement audience in mind.  Believe it or not, many in law enforcement never handled a firearm before they joined the academy, just like in the military these days.  Like many CCW carriers, the new LEO has learned what the letter of the law is, but not the color of the law.  The letter is what it says word for word whereas the color is what it actually means.  I get the impression he is trying to educate the "new recruit" without added nonsense.

I personally have come in contact with many CCW carriers in the course of my time in LE.  Only one of them was overly rude and disrespectful, but was still treated with the same respect I treat all other people with, regardless of CCW or not.  My personal opinion, formed after 12.5 years of service in the Army and current 8 years in LE, I think everyone that qualifies for a CCW/CHL/LTC/CWP (or whatever else you call them) should carry, if not at the least for their own protection and that of their families.  Remember it wasn't too long ago when we were all riding horses and carrying a weapon was a necessity and way of life.  And with the escalating targeting of all first responders, more good guys with guns will always defeat bad guys with guns, regardless of what any politician will tell you.

I enjoyed the article and the balanced viewpoint.  It was written for law enforcement so that's something to consider.  I never felt like he was talking down to me as a CC'er though.  As someone who enjoys writing I've learned you're always going to tick-off someone, you simply can't cover all possibilities without writing a book instead of an article.  Even at that, some people will skew the original meaning based on their personal prejudices or even the mood they're in at the time.  Written communication is left open to a very wide range of interpretations.  

I've had a handful of interactions with police while armed and they never pay me any attention.  Whether as a witness to an event or being pulled over, I hand over my CHL with my DL and have never been disarmed or even asked where my firearm was.  The biggest reaction from a cop was his initial confusion at me handing him 2 ID's then he realized one was a CHL and said "Oh, okay" and that was it.  I smile, keep my hands visible, treat them with the same respect I do anyone else and we go about our day.

I thought it had patronizing undertones, but was insightful nonetheless.

I thought it was a well articulated article.

Thank you for sharing.

Thats a good read into how cops think of everyone else......

Which I can partially understand because of their job......

But honestly, there was a lot of cops with guns > noncops with guns going on there.

On the plus side, the author did take a good bit of time to affirm that not everyone with a gun is a bad guy.  That was positive.

I disagree regarding permits = good guy though.....and I disagree 100% with the concept of permits vs constitutional carry since 2a is a thing....but I digress.

Yeah well that guy is deep down pissed at himself that he couldn't pass the firefighter test.

Hey, not all of us were smart okay. 

That explains your obsession with 10mm Lite.

How relevant is a piece from July 2010?

Considering that it was made during the timeline where gun ownership was being attacked nonstop, I'd say it's pretty relevant.

FBHO

Seeing as right to carry became a nationwide thing at around that time, I'd say very.

No, it did have the tone of... Well CCW is the law of the land now, so we have to force ourselves to accept it.

Rhode island has 2 permits. The AG permit is may issue and the town permit is shall issue.

I've never had a problem with cops because I'm always polite and keep my mouth shut about my CCW.

Great article

Me neither...mostly.

Had one trooper nervous as I got pulled over early in the morning on a bike and put my hands in my pockets. It was effing cold. Didn't even think about it.

Another said "that's not a weapon???" in regards to a pocket knife. Not in my opinion.

Unless it's stabbing someone I'd consider that a cutting utensil.

He seems to spend a lot of time discussing 'tells' for an officer to know that a citizen is carrying concealed.  Here in WA the police cannot detain you just because an officer believes a citizen is carrying a concealed pistol.  They cannot demand to see your CPL just because they think you're carrying, even if another citizen reported that you are.  

It may be that the author is speaking about when an officer stops a citizen for something else, lawfully, and determining by observation that the citizen is carrying a concealed firearm, but that doesn't seem to be the safe move- a pat-down would likely be standard.  It may be the author is talking about the less free states like the northeast, where carry is highly regulated.

Reminds me of this infographic:

"Sometimes a CCW carrier will touch their fingertips to each other in front when contacted"

WTF?

That's actually a thing. According to body language experts it signals confidence and self assurance.

It's also considered a 'ready position'.  Police officers, armed guards, security personnel stand with their hands together in front at belt level.  The back-up cop will stand like that while the other cops talks to the suspect.  

Attached File

Attached File

Attached File

An interesting note. A few years back there was a period of a few months where metro received many calls from panicked sheep who happened to spot a holstered gun on someone out and about.

Patrol would respond with a normal gun call response, 3 cars.

After the officer contacted the gun guy and determined they were not doing anything but carrying legally. A citation for disorderly conduct was issued.

Seems some Dept commander decided the text of the statute made it good.

It use to say...  Any person who commits an act who, in a public place causees a public annoyance or alarm.

His justification was the act of carrying a gun caused a public alarm sufficient to cause someone to call 911.

It took the appeals court spanking them to get the law changed.

It now reads...  A person commits an offense who, in a public place and with intent to cause public annoyance or alarm.

Good article.  I did not find any anti-CCW bias, in fact I think the author was pretty clearly pro-CCW.  He stated several times that we do not expect to be treated as felons (proned out or spread-eagled against a wall), and should not be treated as felons.

Lots of food for thought regarding choice of pants, shoes, etc. to blend in or stick out.