Why the need to "secure" a radio before advising of a CCP holder?

[freqhopping]

Quite a few times now I've heard Loudoun dispatchers asking deputies if their radio is secure before advising them that the subject they are out with possesses a concealed carry permit. Guess what? The subject already knows he has a permit. What's the point?

As far as I'm concerned, if I was to be stopped I already know that officer knows I have a permit once he's run my license. Hell, I may have even advised him of such already. Not saying it over the radio in my presence isn't going to change anything.

 

[MOTORHEAD3902]

Quite a few times now I've heard Loudoun dispatchers asking deputies if their radio is secure before advising them that the subject they are out with possesses a concealed carry permit. Guess what? The subject already knows he has a permit. What's the point?

As far as I'm concerned, if I was to be stopped I already know that officer knows I have a permit once he's run my license. Hell, I may have even advised him of such already. Not saying it over the radio in my presence isn't going to change anything.

I've never heard of a dept doing that...I agree with you, it's friggin pointless!!

The guys with the concealed carry permits are THE GOOD GUYS for cryin out loud!

 

[w8jjr]

not always good guys - just havent been convicted of anything yet.

its a officer safety thing. That guy may have just wasted someone. Nice to have a upper edge just in case

 

[n4jri]

not always good guys - just havent been convicted of anything yet.

its a officer safety thing. That guy may have just wasted someone. Nice to have a upper edge just in case

True in come cases, maybe, but it doesn't address the need to secure the radio. I would thihk that a safety-conscious officer would run the plate even before lighting up the vehicle in question--hopefully not approaching the driver until the registration info is received. Even then, the CCP holder knows that this info is given out. I think that statistics will bear out that non-permit holders are much more likely than permit holders to fire at an LEO.

73/Allen (N4JRI)

 

[car2back]

It's the same as asking "10-12?" in my neck of the woods.... They want to make sure the officer isn't standing right next to a potential problem before blurting out that the subject may be armed... They aren't accusing anyone of anything, just being cautious for that 1 person in 100 that is not a good guy!

 

[MOTORHEAD3902]

not always good guys - just havent been convicted of anything yet.

its a officer safety thing. That guy may have just wasted someone. Nice to have a upper edge just in case

HUH? I am very keen on oficer safety myself, it's habit. Is it that you are trying to say that a concealed permit holder may have just wasted someone? Wouldn't it stand to reason to you that if someone was whacked enough to waste someone, they wouldnt bother having a concealed carry permit?
Also, I resent your inference that the folks holding concealed carry permits havent been convicted of anything YET.

Your tone makes it seem that you believe ccw holders are automatically the criminals.
If thats what you believe, then you are misinformed...:roll:

 

[car2back]

Motorhead, you're just being a little too sensitive, he's not saying everyone w/ a CCP is bad guy, he's just saying everyone w/ a permit might not be as good of a person as you, I've taken a couple permitted carriers to jail myself, rare but it does happen!

 

[MOTORHEAD3902]

Motorhead, you're just being a little too sensitive, he's not saying everyone w/ a CCP is bad guy, he's just saying everyone w/ a permit might not be as good of a person as you, I've taken a couple permitted carriers to jail myself, rare but it does happen!

Too sensitive? What was said was offensive..."NOT CONVICTED YET?"
Would you take offense if someone said, for instance, that a cop making contact with a violator isn't necesarily a good guy, he just hadn't been convicted of corruption YET?

The YET thing just irks me...making the assumption that someone who choses to carry is some sort of "criminal in waiting" shows, I suppose, a difference in training...

No worries, though...

 

[appalachianscanner]

+1 We are the good guys

 

[N_Jay]

+1 We are the good guys

Every single one?:roll:
Every single time?:roll:

 

[tglendye]

Freqhopping & Motorhead have it right in my book. I agree the need is there to notify the officer the subject has a permit. But there's no sense in making sure the subject does not hear the notification... especially since they are not violating a law by carrying... well, unless it's a bar, church, gov't building, etc.

If someone's going to commit a gun crime they don't need a permit. I'm not trying to say that permit holders are angels, but it shows that they are attempting to abide by the law in obtaining a permit.

I remember an incident involving open carry in a restaurant somewhere in Loudon (maybe Leesburg???). I think the carrying people were pushing things way too far, but it sounded as if the officers went a little too far as well. Maybe they don't like guns up there.

 

[N_Jay]

Maybe a few people here need to understand that if you are too careful when you don't think you have to be, then you are more likely to have been careful enough when encounter the unexpected.

 

[MOTORHEAD3902]

Maybe a few people here need to understand that if you are too careful when you don't think you have to be, then you are more likely to have been careful enough when encounter the unexpected.

Thanks for the officer safety tip. :roll:
I always think of every citizen I encounter being armed, as it is their 2nd Amendment right. Why does it matter if the radio is out of earshot when the dispatcher advises they have a carry permit. If the fact that they are carrying becomes an issue, then we deal with it. N_Jay, is THAT how you deal with violators on the street?
The guys that get the permits are going about things the correct way, and "securing" the radio to announce information THAT THE CITIZEN IS ALREADY AWARE OF, ABOUT AN ACTIVITY THAT IS NOT ILLEGAL serves no purpose.

By way of illustration:
Radio: Is your radio secure?
Patrolman: 10-4, go ahead..
Radio Subject you have is a WHITE MALE, repeating WHITE MALE. Do you copy?
Patrolman: 10-4, I'll go talk to him about his race.

Can anyone imagine the above? What purpose does it serve?
About the same amount of purpose keeping it secret from the ccw-holder the fact that he has a permit. Heres a clue, the permit holder went through the process, he applied to get the permit, he had his fingerprints taken and run through AFIS to ensure no criminal history would preclude his ownership of a firearm, he paid the admin fees...HE KNOWS HE HAS A PERMIT! WHY THE SECRET? Again, I say :roll:

 

[N_Jay]

Maybe because, (from what I can tell here, the mere mention that informing an officer about a CCP is considered inciting enough to generate this thread) it could in some cases get a rational gun owner (or maybe on the irrational edge of rational enough to get a CCP) to move from being merely annoyed at being stopped to being belligerent about it?

Just my thoughts.

Why don't we let a few of the LOE's on the board comment?

 

[MOTORHEAD3902]

Why don't we let a few of the LOE's on the board comment?

Sure!!

I would LOVE to hear what the "LOE's" on this board have to say.
Any cops here? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[Samuel]

Im with you on this one Motorhead....although I have had my communications center ask if im Signal 4 / 10-83 / radio secure in some pretty silly situations I cant say I have ever heard them do this. I will say I do get frustrated when people who have CCW don't tell me on initial approach.

 

[Stick0413]

Maybe because, (from what I can tell here, the mere mention that informing an officer about a CCP is considered inciting enough to generate this thread) it could in some cases get a rational gun owner (or maybe on the irrational edge of rational enough to get a CCP) to move from being merely annoyed at being stopped to being belligerent about it?

Just my thoughts.

Why don't we let a few of the LOE's on the board comment?

LEO's.. there are at least a couple of them here... the person you are barking at is one of them and car2back is another.. so hey... we do have professional opinion here.

Oh yeah.. just showed this to a LEO friend of mine that is here (years of experience) and he said the same thing... it is a pointless thing to do... the permit holder already knows he has a permit... secure the radio is for something that he might not know he has (i.e. a warrant)

edit again.. looks like we have a 3rd on the board and 4th overall that agrees that secure the radio for a ccw permit is strange.

 

[mancow]

I see no need for it. As stated before, the guy already knows he has a gun and unless he's completely insane why would the fact that the Officer being notified set him off? But, I guess if it makes people feel better then what's the harm?

 

[Stick0413]

I see no need for it. As stated before, the guy already knows he has a gun and unless he's completely insane why would the fact that the Officer being notified set him off? But, I guess if it makes people feel better then what's the harm?

yeah.. and if he is going to fire at the LEO then he is going to do it. Doesn't really matter if he has a ccw or not, if the person is going to do it they will do it, if they are not then they won't.

 

[n4jri]

Even when you factor in car2back's admittedly rare experiences, I don't know why a permit holder (even one who was recently committed a crime) would be alarmed by hearing his/her permit announced. That announcement is their assurance that the officer won't be alarmed to see their weapon in a non-threatening posture.

The only effect that I can see from going "secuire" is to defeat someone's scanner--after all, the policeman's radio still decodes whatever is 'secure' so that the officer (and anyone else in earshot) can hear it. If I were a permit-holding family-killer or domestic terrorist detained in a traffic stop, had a scanner, and suddenly heard something about my situation get scrambled, I would suspect the very worst. In such a case, going secure might provoke a real criminal to do something drastic that the situation doesn't call for. This seems to me a LESS safe situation for the officer.

It seems to me that what you'd want to be secure for is telling the officer that their suspect/detainee does NOT have a permit. So far as I know (LEO's please correct me if I'm wrong) the lack of permit is communicated by the dispatcher's silence on the subject--which seems a lot more secure to me than any other option.

73/Allen (N4JRI)