Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
OverSword

Why I Can't Support CCW permits

166 posts in this topic

from the article:

John Filippidis is a Concealed and Carry Weapons permit holder, which means he can carry his firearm on his person or in his car legally. He followed all applicable laws in the State of Florida to obtain his permit, and has been a lawful citizen since being “given the right” to retain a firearm when in public.

Recently he was driving through the State of Maryland on a family vacation when he was stopped, for no apparent reason, by a law enforcement officer who had trailed his car for at least ten minutes.

According to his family,

The officer was from the Transportation Authority Police. He asked Filippidis for his license and registration. Around ten minutes later, he returned and asked John to exit his vehicle.

“You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”

Filippidis told the officer his gun was at home in his safe.

Apparently the officer didn’t believe Filippidis, because he began questioning his wife, Kally, next:

“Your husband owns a gun. Where is it?”

First Kally said, “I don’t know.” Retelling it later to the Tampa Tribune, she said, “And that’s all I should have said.” Instead, attempting to be helpful, she added, “Maybe in the glove [box]. Maybe in the console. I’m scared of it. I don’t want to have anything to do with it. I might shoot right through my foot.”

That’s when things escalated. The officer confronted Filippidis:

“You’re a liar. You’re lying to me. Your family says you have it. Where is the gun? Tell me where it is, and we can resolve this right now.”

Of course a gun could not be produced, since it was home in Filippidis’ safe.

Read the story here

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of hyperbolic bs by that article's author.

That the officer wanted to check the vehicle for a gun does not mean he was going to confiscate it.

The family was not "treated as if criminals" simply by the fact of owning a gun, and there is no indication the stop was illegal.

Is this the best the pro-gun lobby can push?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of hyperbolic bs by that article's author.

That the officer wanted to check the vehicle for a gun does not mean he was going to confiscate it.

The family was not "treated as if criminals" simply by the fact of owning a gun, and there is no indication the stop was illegal.

Is this the best the pro-gun lobby can push?

Why were they stopped?
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of hyperbolic bs by that article's author.

That the officer wanted to check the vehicle for a gun does not mean he was going to confiscate it.

The family was not "treated as if criminals" simply by the fact of owning a gun, and there is no indication the stop was illegal.

Is this the best the pro-gun lobby can push?

Bull leo. They were pulled over because the cars owner was flagged as having a CCW permit. They were then detained and the car was ilegaly searched. Get real.
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bull leo. They were pulled over because the cars owner was flagged as having a CCW permit. They were then detained and the car was ilegaly searched. Get real.

Reinforces the caution that must be taken when traveling since some states recognize a citizen's right to self protection - EVEN when away from home on the open road and others do not. In Mississippi a citizen's car is just like his home but in Alabama one must have a CCW to keep a firearm in the vehicle. Going begging to some political hack with a sheriff's badge is still required in most states where you can even GET a CCW. Constitutional carry sounds pretty darned good to me - but hey - I'm just a US citizen, what do I know?
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of hyperbolic bs by that article's author.

That the officer wanted to check the vehicle for a gun does not mean he was going to confiscate it.

The family was not "treated as if criminals" simply by the fact of owning a gun, and there is no indication the stop was illegal.

Is this the best the pro-gun lobby can push?

How about the same story from the mainstream media? Does that sit better with you?

If nothing was done wrong, why did internal affairs feel the need to apologize to the man?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a concealed weapons permit is yet another tool that can be used by a police department to stop people, and perform searches and seizures and arrests where appropriate.

I'm stunned.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol.

a bad case of wife having a big mouth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any links to the information on the case that don't include the words "oppressive", "dictatorial", "sacred", or "chilling"? So far, all I have able to find are copies of columnist's Tom Jacksons original story.

Personally, I suspect the driver was pulled over for looking Hispanic within Baltimore city limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol.

a bad case of wife having a big mouth

She panicked.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just more bs from people who seem to operate under the insane logic that we will all somehow be safer if there is no gun control.

Becasue this is what the debate is really about. This is not a pro-gun vs. anti-gun debate, but a pro-gun control vs. anti-gun control debate. I see almost no one calling for a total ban on guns (yes I know that there are a few loons out there, thus the word almost) but more and more I see people suggesting, and in some cases out right saying, that no gun control would be better.

Edited by Odin11
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree. While it seems clear, based on the little information we have, that the officer was out of line, it is true that a police officer should have the ability to know whether the person in the car he is approaching is licensed to carry a weapon. It is simply too dangerous a variable to be left to chance or worse, surprise. Similarly, if a police officer asks to see your license and your gun, you don't get to say no, not by any law of the land. That this police officer was described abusing his position for reasons as yet unstated is a different matter. I sincerely doubt the cop was so upset over someone carrying a CWP that he pulled them over, interrogated them, searched them, etc.. The CWP was just one of the justifications he used to cover whatever reason he actually had.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just more bs from people who seem to operate under the insane logic that we will all somehow be safer if there is no gun control.

We'll all be safer in the long run with less control. The "somehow" is that power corrupts and great power corrupts greatly. Guns are incidental, but they're also controversial so they get singled out and toyed with politically.

Another potentially insane logic I've heard repeated is that if there are less guns, they'll be less gun crimes! If there were less drugs, there'd be less addicts. If there was less spending there'd be less debt and deficit. We can go on and on with the deprivation diet ideas and we can all do better. But maybe the most insane thing of all is that you've got to get guns away from criminals who would use them. And you can't do that by waving flowers at them or inviting them over for tea. That takes good men with guns, which is a perfectly legitimate excuse I think we can all agree, but for some people, it's only when they're wearing a blue costume and collecting a govt paycheck.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a gun or permit is another excuse for cops to hassle you. "Do you have any weapons?" is another question they love, and anything you say or do in response to that question, like any other question, will be used against you at that moment or much later in court. One doesn't have to speak the 5th Amendment into existence, like Miranda it's already there, at all times. If a cop is desperate to make his quota, he's human and fallible, he's under a lot of stress, he gets lied to a dozen times a day, and yes, cops on a busting binge can be real enemies of freedom after letting their power go to their heads. Then they get rewarded for it with bonuses from the department. I have to believe most cops love their jobs that they're willing to take the tremendous risks to their lives and livelihoods to make quite the regular-sized paycheck.

This fairly comical OP goes right to the same old lesson not to talk to police - ever - unless they're called by you or called on your behalf.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bull leo. They were pulled over because the cars owner was flagged as having a CCW permit. They were then detained and the car was ilegaly searched. Get real.

No, the car was searched because the husband and his wife told different stories as to the location of the firearm, thus the officer had probable cause to suspect the husband was lying and so had some reason for carrying a weapon he wanted to hide.

'Probable cause' is not "illegal".

The husband and his wife were on different channels regarding the necessity for owning a gun. Obviously, his wife did not want the family to have one. Whether the husband knew this and didn't care - assuming that, as the 'man, he was automatically in authority - or whether he didn't know because he doesn't bother finding out who his wife is, is irrelevant.

In any case, what caused the officer to have 'reasonable suspicion' were the couple themselves. They have only themselves to blame for the search.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the same story from the mainstream media? Does that sit better with you?

If nothing was done wrong, why did internal affairs feel the need to apologize to the man?

Because, in this age of litigation for just about anything that a person feels "offends them", bodies such as police forces issue apologies as a matter of course to cover their asses. Did the couple make a song and dance about the 'indignity' they suffered?

I bet they did, which is why it ended up in the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were a cop, naturally I would approach anybody I knew had a CCW with greater caution than those who don't, because in most of the US you can keep you CCW (unless it expires at some point) even when you went off the far end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a responsible CCW permit holder, it is wise to tell an officer if you have a firearm on your person when pulled over. If you do not, then it is not even up for discussion. Since Maryland does not recognize the CCW from Florida, he could have had that weapon in his car as long as he followed the state law regarding transportation of firearms. If he was in a reciprocating state, he must follow that individual state guidelines for CCW. Florida state law allows for concealed carry of firearms, knives, tear gas gun, Billie and electronic weapons. Some states only allow firearms.

Bottom line, with a CCW comes responsibility. If you are a resident of Florida, there is a "bible" for those who carry firearms under the CCW. It is written by an attorney and I will not advertise the book here, however, if you wish to look it up, Google Florida Firearms and see what you get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because, in this age of litigation for just about anything that a person feels "offends them", bodies such as police forces issue apologies as a matter of course to cover their asses. Did the couple make a song and dance about the 'indignity' they suffered?

I bet they did, which is why it ended up in the article.

Perhaps in the UK, but not here. You seem to be focusing on the fact that the stories didn't match when the officer talked to them, but there doesn't seem to be any reason for him to be pulled over in the first place. Since there weren't any tickets or even warnings issued, clearly he wasn't even speeding or driving recklessly.

It's pretty clear that the only reason he was pulled over was because he was a CCW holder. His plate was scanned and it came up in their database. That's NOT a reason to be pulled over.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were a cop, naturally I would approach anybody I knew had a CCW with greater caution than those who don't, because in most of the US you can keep you CCW (unless it expires at some point) even when you went off the far end.

Funny, I've never met a copy that didn't consider a CCW holder one of the "good guys".

If you think about it, a CCW is nothing more than a government certified firearms owner. I'm certified by the government to drive this vehicle, to fly this plane, to practice medicine, to carry this firearm - there's no difference really.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, I've never met a copy that didn't consider a CCW holder one of the "good guys".

If you think about it, a CCW is nothing more than a government certified firearms owner. I'm certified by the government to drive this vehicle, to fly this plane, to practice medicine, to carry this firearm - there's no difference really.

So why are you so against weapon registry and securing them from those incapable of safely having one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would assume that a registry would be abused to harass people in just the same way. The guy shouldn't have been pulled over. But since he was and his wife was a blubbering fool I can understand the probable cause. A cop may want to approach a CCW holder with caution but a CCW permit isn't a reason to be approached.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would assume that a registry would be abused to harass people in just the same way. The guy shouldn't have been pulled over. But since he was and his wife was a blubbering fool I can understand the probable cause. A cop may want to approach a CCW holder with caution but a CCW permit isn't a reason to be approached.

We don't know why he was pulled over. It is only the article which guesses it was because of the man having a CCW - but that is all it is, a guess. And worse, a guess to support an agenda.

For all we know the cop may have had a good reason to pull the car over, but the police force don't have to divulge that reason.

Edited by Leonardo
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could be right or you could be naive. Guess we'll never know.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Andthen. Just to point out Alabama is now an open carry state ..it is also legal to have a gun in your car without a permit but a few restrictions apply. A lot of our laws.changed last year . Our state government made a point to put new laws on the books to reinforce the rights of gunowners ..

Edited by Dougward5
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.