CCW Status Linked to License Plate Number?

[Carlos Danger]

One of the issues with NC firearms law that irks me the most is having my status as a CCW holder visible to any law enforcement officer who runs my tag. Presumably this is done to increase officer safety during traffic stops, but I don't see how it does that, or even how this information is at all useful to an officer.

First, since only about 6% (~700k of ~11M residents) of NC residents have a CCW, there is over a 90% chance that running a NC tag number will give the officer no information relevant to whether or not there is likely to be a gun in the vehicle.

Second, criminals don't have CCW's, and CCW holders are unlikely to engage in the kind of behavior that an officer has to be most concerned about. Most analyses show that CCW holders commit gun crimes at a much lower rate than non-CCW holders; if you teased out the rate at which CCW holders commit gun violence against officers, I bet you would find that it is much lower still. If anything, it would seem that a CCW holder is probably one of the safest people an officer could encounter and not someone they need to be warned about.

Third, all the same things can be said for the duty to inform. No matter how obvious it is as to why a cop would prefer to know whether or not a person they are interacting with is carrying a gun, the criminals who are an actual threat are never going to disclose that. This requirement doesn't make anyone safer; it just places yet another legal burden on a law-abiding citizen exercising a constitutionally-protected right. It also potentially increases tensions unnecessarily during an officer - citizen interaction.

The tag issue mostly concerns me as someone who several times per year drives though gun-hostile states. The Safe Passage Provision of the 1986 FOPA law establishes the legality of transporting any legally-owned weapon through any state as long as certain requirements are met. Despite this, there are many examples of law-abiding folks making a good-faith attempt to do everything right and still getting jammed up by a state government that simply doesn't recognize the individual right to bear arms. As I drive through these states my NC tag already broadcasts "RESIDENT OF A RELATIVELY GUN-FRIENDLY STATE HERE". I shouldn't have to add 'ALSO, I"M A CCW HOLDER AND LIKELY TRANSPORTING A GUN THAT IS ILLEGAL HERE", which is exactly what having my CCW permit linked to my tag number does.

Broadcasting CCW status doesn't make anyone safer, and frankly it isn't anyone's f'ng business whether or not I possess a CCW- including the cops.

 

[Frack N Cylons]

From what I've seen with ride alongs, a patrolman in another state won't be able to pull your information.

 

[fieldgrade]

From what I've seen with ride alongs, a patrolman in another state won't be able to pull your information.

There were discussions here a few years ago about LEO in Maryland pulling out-of-state plates linked to CHPs, but I cannot confirm the veracity of those claims.

 

[Car0linab0y]

Agree with OP; statistics show concealed permit holders commit crimes at a lower rate than police...

 

[Catfish]

One of the issues with NC firearms law that irks me the most is having my status as a CCW holder visible to any law enforcement officer who runs my tag. Presumably this is done to increase officer safety during traffic stops, but I don't see how it does that, or even how this information is at all useful to an officer.

First, since only about 6% (~700k of ~11M residents) of NC residents have a CCW, there is over a 90% chance that running a NC tag number will give the officer no information relevant to whether or not there is likely to be a gun in the vehicle.

Second, criminals don't have CCW's, and CCW holders are unlikely to engage in the kind of behavior that an officer has to be most concerned about. Most analyses show that CCW holders commit gun crimes at a much lower rate than non-CCW holders; if you teased out the rate at which CCW holders commit gun violence against officers, I bet you would find that it is much lower still. If anything, it would seem that a CCW holder is probably one of the safest people an officer could encounter and not someone they need to be warned about.

Third, all the same things can be said for the duty to inform. No matter how obvious it is as to why a cop would prefer to know whether or not a person they are interacting with is carrying a gun, the criminals who are an actual threat are never going to disclose that. This requirement doesn't make anyone safer; it just places yet another legal burden on a law-abiding citizen exercising a constitutionally-protected right. It also potentially increases tensions unnecessarily during an officer - citizen interaction.

The tag issue mostly concerns me as someone who several times per year drives though gun-hostile states. The Safe Passage Provision of the 1986 FOPA law establishes the legality of transporting any legally-owned weapon through any state as long as certain requirements are met. Despite this, there are many examples of law-abiding folks making a good-faith attempt to do everything right and still getting jammed up by a state government that simply doesn't recognize the individual right to bear arms. As I drive through these states my NC tag already broadcasts "RESIDENT OF A RELATIVELY GUN-FRIENDLY STATE HERE". I shouldn't have to add 'ALSO, I"M A CCW HOLDER AND LIKELY TRANSPORTING A GUN THAT IS ILLEGAL HERE", which is exactly what having my CCW permit linked to my tag number does.

Broadcasting CCW status doesn't make anyone safer, and frankly it isn't anyone's f'ng business whether or not I possess a CCW- including the cops.

The problem with rational-but-biased arguments like this one (which I support BTW) is that they do not hold up when you flip the bias. Would it not seem just as rational to argue, from the LEO point of view, that there is absolutely no reason to withhold this information from the officer?

These privacy issues need to be dealt with on a more fundamental level - Constitutional Carry might do it.

 

[Carlos Danger]

From what I've seen with ride alongs, a patrolman in another state won't be able to pull your information.

That would be great if true, but my understanding is that out of state police agencies can indeed glean your NC CCW status from your tag number. I don't know exactly how the searches work, but they can potentially get a lot of information from running a tag number or DL number.

 

[1075tech]

Even if it were true that CCW were linked to a plate number, and I'm not sure that it in fact is, all this really would tell Leo is that the registered vehicle owner is licensed.

It doesn't mean that the driver is.

 

[JohnFreeman]

This is just more of the "pass a law, feel like we've accomplished something meaningful" legislation. I don't see why my personal privacy as a law abiding citizen should be subject to a perception of safety for cops (who volunteered to work in their chosen field).

I'm mostly not anti-cop, but I get tired of them being treated as deities . To paraphrase John Madden in regards quarterbacks and defensive linemen , " If police work scares them, cops should be made to wear dresses "

 

[Toprudder]

The problem with rational-but-biased arguments like this one (which I support BTW) is that they do not hold up when you flip the bias. Would it not seem just as rational to argue, from the LEO point of view, that there is absolutely no reason to withhold this information from the officer?

These privacy issues need to be dealt with on a more fundamental level - Constitutional Carry might do it.

I can see your point. I believe there are some law enforcement that KNOW the CCW holders are not the problem. It might actually put them at ease knowing the person they just pulled over has a CCW.

@1075tech has a valid point. It doesn't mean the driver has a CCW - or a gun.

 

[Carlos Danger]

The problem with rational-but-biased arguments like this one (which I support BTW) is that they do not hold up when you flip the bias. Would it not seem just as rational to argue, from the LEO point of view, that there is absolutely no reason to withhold this information from the officer?

These privacy issues need to be dealt with on a more fundamental level - Constitutional Carry might do it.

Two responses to this:

First, using that logic there is virtually no limit to what information should be submitted to a database that can be queried by any officer at any time. What reason do I have, after all, to withhold ANY information about myself at all?

Second, we have a general expectation of privacy from the government. Clearly there are countless examples of where our overlords enforce "exceptions", but at the very least they should have to justify each one. I don't see that being done here at all.

 

[noway2]

I have considered creating a corporation and having it own my cars for this very reason. While perfectly legal, the insurance would be more expensive, but also have the advantage of not having insurance points.

In the end, it’s all about the State and its mercenary agents having a disparity of power over the people. Something I suspect the founders would have found anathema.

 

[Frack N Cylons]

That would be great if true, but my understanding is that out of state police agencies can indeed glean your NC CCW status from your tag number. I don't know exactly how the searches work, but they can potentially get a lot of information from running a tag number or DL number.

It was just my experience. The county police officer I was riding with didn't bother looking at out of state tags because his computer wouldn't tell him anything at all about that person.

This was 5 or so years ago so things may have changed, but I've never seen any reliable information to backup the claim that out of state cops can pull any info. It would make sense that state troopers would have more access, but I have no idea.

I agree with the majority of your OP.

 

[Carlos Danger]

My understanding is that police cars equipped with license-plate scanners automatically scan every plate they see and alert the officer to tag numbers related to stolen vehicles, arrest warrants, missing persons, and even lapsed registration or insurance.

I presume that in states like NJ and NY at least, cops are automatically alerted when their scanner reads a tag number associated with a CCW holder.

 

[Jayne]

Even if it were true that CCW were linked to a plate number, and I'm not sure that it in fact is, all this really would tell Leo is that the registered vehicle owner is licensed.

It doesn't mean that the driver is.

No, but it could give them probable cause to pull you out and search for anything they're interested in planting.

 

[1075tech]

I presume that in states like NJ and NY at least, cops are automatically alerted when their scanner reads a tag number associated with a CCW holder.

Having had my CCW in NY, in the (very) few times I was stopped, it was never mentioned or inquired about.

Yes, the DL info is entered in certain paperwork regarding your handgun license, and, possibly is linked to it in some database but I'm still skeptical that it is tied to vehicle registration.

 

[Carlos Danger]

No, but it could give them probable cause to pull you out and search for anything they're interested in planting.

Exactly. This is always my concern in NJ or NY.

"This is a military-aged male driving a pickup from a state where gun laws are super lax by our standards, and it looks like he has a CCW permit to boot. What our the odds that he's carrying something illegal here? Let's make up a pretext to pull him over and see what we can find out".

 

[Carlos Danger]

Having had my CCW in NY, in the (very) few times I was stopped, it was never mentioned or inquired about.

Yes, the DL info is entered in certain paperwork regarding your handgun license, and, possibly is linked to it in some database but I'm still skeptical that it is tied to vehicle registration.

In NC, your CCW is definitely is tied to your tag number. And most state DMV's and state police agencies definitely share all sorts info with each other.

 

[Precision Seeker]

My wife was running an errand one night. The light turned yellow. She sped up to make it. A cop saw her and pulled her over. Pleasant exchange, no ticket. But the officer asked her if she had any weapons in the car. Wife didn't and answered accordingly. Officer told her she knew she was a CCW holder and wanted to make sure.

Based on that, I'm 100% they know when we are pulled over. But I have no back end knowledge of what information cops see when they run a plate.

 

[GymB]

but my understanding is

My understanding is

I presume

It sounds like you’re afraid of and upset about something and you don’t really know if that something exists. Maybe find out before you get too worked up. File a FOIA request with either the NCSHP or whatever the state computer folks department is asking for details of what information is available to out-of-state agencies. If CCW status it is provided, reach out to the most rabid legislators in the house and senate and explain why this is a problem and why the CCW info should not be shared.

I drive a company car, almost always.

 

[Catfish]

Second, we have a general expectation of privacy from the government.

A general expectation, yes. But you'll have an uphill argument if you want your government issued permit to be privately held information.

First, using that logic there is virtually no limit to what information should be submitted to a database

There is definitely a limit and no reason to engage in absurd absolutes. We're on the same side here.

 

[Button Pusher]

I have considered creating a corporation and having it own my cars for this very reason. While perfectly legal, the insurance would be more expensive, but also have the advantage of not having insurance points.

In the end, it’s all about the State and its mercenary agents having a disparity of power over the people. Something I suspect the founders would have found anathema.

How about a vehicle trust and you are the trustee?

 

[fishgutzy]

This ranks right up there with duty to inform laws. IIRC someone on here wrote that when his wife "informed," the trooper stepped back, put his hand on his side arm and asked "you aren't going to shoot me are you?" Maybe a rookie Barney Fife. Maybe an idiot thinking he was being cute.
Either way, that law can only be enforced against lawful carriers. Criminals carrying guns have a 5th amendment right not to disclose whether they are carrying a gun.
Regarding info tied to DL, I have heard, but only 3rd 4th.... hand that other states can permits and deem that probable cause to stop and search.
When we moved behind enemy lines to MD, I did not get pulled over once. One of those trips, I had all my hardware in two locked tool boxes.

 

[Button Pusher]

This ranks right up there with duty to inform laws. IIRC someone on here wrote that when his wife "informed," the trooper stepped back, put his hand on his side arm and asked "you aren't going to shoot me are you?" Maybe a rookie Barney Fife. Maybe an idiot thinking he was being cute.
Either way, that law can only be enforced against lawful carriers. Criminals carrying guns have a 5th amendment right not to disclose whether they are carrying a gun.
Regarding info tied to DL, I have heard, but only 3rd 4th.... hand that other states can permits and deem that probable cause to stop and search.
When we moved behind enemy lines to MD, I did not get pulled over once. One of those trips, I had all my hardware in two locked tool boxes.

I recall another post, the driver identified as CHP to LEO, the Rookie on the passenger side of the car pulls his service weapon and yells He has a gun.
LEO tells rookie to holster that weapon and sent driver on his way. Asked rookie why he pulled on driver, 'he has a gun'. Rookie was chewed out.

 

[noway2]

How about a vehicle trust and you are the trustee?

Yes, that would work and your question caused me to remember having this discussion with an estate attorney. He found some statute with a clause that he thought would enable you to get around the tax associated with the transfer of a vehicle. It had to do with the fact that as a trustee, you're effectively transferring it to yourself and as the owner maintaining possession of the vehicle the whole time. He did mention that you would likely need to own the vehicle outright (no loan), however.

 

[scmoose]

Was just told by a RPD officer that it isn't the tag directly that shows CHP permit. When they run a tag, it shows the DL ID of the registered owner, they then run the DL ID and that will show if the person is a CHP holder. Also asked a South Carolina Deputy the same question, he said a tag will not show if the owner has a CHP, but didn't ask him if a DL ID would. Now all my cop buddies think I'm in some sort of trouble with all these random questions.

 

[Carlos Danger]

There is definitely a limit and no reason to engage in absurd absolutes. We're on the same side here.

I agree with what you pointed out.

I'm just saying that if the counterpoint to my point is, as you mention, that "there is no reason to withhold this information from the officer", then where exactly is the limit to that? What constitutes an acceptable reason - from the point of the view of an officer - for withholding information? Because I think left to the state, the answer to that question is that "there is no acceptable reason, ever, unless you have something to hide". I don't think that's an absurd absolute at all; I think the government will always take every inch it can get away with.

There needs to be some plausible rationale here, aside from just the same old "well why not - what are you hiding?"

 

[Button Pusher]

Yes, that would work and your question caused me to remember having this discussion with an estate attorney. He found some statute with a clause that he thought would enable you to get around the tax associated with the transfer of a vehicle. It had to do with the fact that as a trustee, you're effectively transferring it to yourself and as the owner maintaining possession of the vehicle the whole time. He did mention that you would likely need to own the vehicle outright (no loan), however.

Interesting, you do own the vehicle but there is a lien on it if it was financed.

 

[Carlos Danger]

Was just told by a RPD officer that it isn't the tag directly that shows CHP permit. When they run a tag, it shows the DL ID of the registered owner, they then run the DL ID and that will show if the person is a CHP holder. Also asked a South Carolina Deputy the same question, he said a tag will not show if the owner has a CHP, but didn't ask him if a DL ID would. Now all my cop buddies think I'm in some sort of trouble with all these random questions.

That makes sense, good to know.

 

[JohnFreeman]

There needs to be some plausible rationale here, aside from just the same old "well why not - what are you hiding?"

Bravo.

That pat answer you used as an example, is common and infuriating.

"I'm not hiding anything. Why are you trying to intimidate me?"

 

[Carlos Danger]

It sounds like you’re afraid of and upset about something and you don’t really know if that something exists. Maybe find out before you get too worked up.

Not really sure what you are getting at here. I explained in my original post exactly what I don't like about this and why.

 

[noway2]

Interesting, you do own the vehicle but there is a lien on it if it was financed.

Yes, and that is where the hangup would occur. By transferring it to your own trust, it is still changing the name of the registered owner and from the perspective of the lien holder, the vehicle is being sold and hence they would want the loan to be paid off.

 

[Catfish]

then where exactly is the limit to that? What constitutes an acceptable reason

Somewhere in between your checkbook and your ID. Meaning private papers are private. Government issued ID and permits are for interactions with the government. And somehow I ended up arguing against myself - well done.

FWIW I don't support CHPs at all. I think the whole system should be abolished. Permit-less carry for every soul who wants to carry.

But I still don't fully understand the privacy angle on this one. I have a permit issued to me by a Law Enforcement Dept., and I expect that information to be private from Law Enforcement Officers? Doesn't track.

 

[Rob]

2010, I was in a car accident. At initial contact with LEO, he asked if my pistol was on me or in the vehicle.
Not only had firearms not been discussed, i had not had a current CCW permit in ~6 years.
But apparently there was still a note of it connected with my tags.
LE has more info than they need.

 

[Average Joe]

Was just told by a RPD officer that it isn't the tag directly that shows CHP permit. When they run a tag, it shows the DL ID of the registered owner, they then run the DL ID and that will show if the person is a CHP holder. Also asked a South Carolina Deputy the same question, he said a tag will not show if the owner has a CHP, but didn't ask him if a DL ID would. Now all my cop buddies think I'm in some sort of trouble with all these random questions.

This is correct, your CCH is only connected to your drivers license. Not your vehicle registration.

Some examples, I witnessed a traffic violation, I run the vehicle tag, and it comes back with a female registered owner. Yet, I clearly saw the driver was a male and no other occupants. I would not run the registered owners drivers license information. Because it offers no value to the identity of the driver.

However, let’s change the driver to a female. At this point, I would check the registered owner’s drivers information which also lets me know if the registered owner has a CCH. Does this mean the driver is the registered owner? Of course not, and until I have confirmed the drivers identity, the registered owners CCH status offers minimum value.

LEOs do not automatically run drivers information to strictly to know if the operator has a CCH. LEOs check the information to help establish the possible identity of the operator.

Out of state LEOs can find out if you have a CCH, but not from just running your registration. They must request the driver’s information be checked with the DMV of the state that issued the drivers license. If they do not request it, it does not automatically pop up.

Tag readers are only scanning the registration tag, not the registered owners information. Since your CCH is not connected with your vehicle registration, LEOs with tag readers will not know if you have or do not have a CCH. It is the same for in state and out of state. They will only know when they run your information.

 

[Average Joe]

2010, I was in a car accident. At initial contact with LEO, he asked if my pistol was on me or in the vehicle.
Not only had firearms not been discussed, i had not had a current CCW permit in ~6 years.
But apparently there was still a note of it connected with my tags.
LE has more info than they need.

It was connected to you, not your tags. And once you obtain your permit. It will always be linked to your divers license, no matter the status.

 

[Carlos Danger]

But I still don't fully understand the privacy angle on this one. I have a permit issued to me by a Law Enforcement Dept., and I expect that information to be private from Law Enforcement Officers? Doesn't track.

It isn't so much about privacy, per se. It's more about just not liking the fact that government agents have more information about me than I feel is relevant or necessary during a routine interaction. But you are correct, it's a permit issued by law enforcement that I voluntarily applied for. It is what it is.

But it is really just about the issue that I described when traveling out of state in gun-hostile states. If that wasn't part of my life, I would probably never think about this at all.

Constitutional carry should definitely be the law of the land.

 

[Rob]

It was connected to you, not your tags. And once you obtain your permit. It will always be linked to your divers license, no matter the status.

It was a hectic situation, I don't remember giving any information to LEO prior to him asking about "your pistol" but, it was very hectic.
I could easily be wrong so I'll stop repeating that story.

Having the info attached (even out of date) to Drivers License makes way more sense.

Rob

 

[Average Joe]

It was a hectic situation, I don't remember giving any information to LEO prior to him asking about "your pistol" but, it was very hectic.
I could easily be wrong so I'll stop repeating that story.

Having the info attached (even out of date) to Drivers License makes way more sense.

Rob

I understand, and hope you have made a full recovery. There are several ways the trooper could have gotten your info.

 

[Scsmith42]

This ranks right up there with duty to inform laws. IIRC someone on here wrote that when his wife "informed," the trooper stepped back, put his hand on his side arm and asked "you aren't going to shoot me are you?" Maybe a rookie Barney Fife. Maybe an idiot thinking he was being cute.

That was me. My wife was pulled over by a state trooper on New Hill Holloman Road in Chatham County. It was a very bizarre experience. The guy backed up all the way from her door to his patrol car with his hands on his holstered weapon.

All of my own personal experiences (save one) with LEO's when I followed the "duty to inform" have been positive. The officers expressed appreciation for my notification, and in almost all instances gave me a warning instead of a ticket. The disappointing experience was with a NC DOT (weigh) trooper, who ultimately let me go with a warning. He requested that I disarm myself....

Back to the OP's premise, I think of it differently. We all know, and the bulk of LEO's know, that CCW holders are not the problem. Many LEO's have expressed their appreciation to me for carrying. So if they pull me over and already know that I have a CCW, it seems to me that they might be a little more comfortable if they see a firearm, versus not knowing in advance that the registered vehicle owner has a CCW.

Perhaps some of our LEO members can chime in and let us know the impact that advance notice of a CCW has on their comfort during a traffic stop.

 

[Average Joe]

Perhaps some of our LEO members can chime in and let us know the impact that advance notice of a CCW has on their comfort during a traffic stop.

I wonder the trooper’s response is something they are teaching in their academy. I mean what are the odds of two individuals having very similar responses from two separate troopers.

When I was working, the advanced notice of a CCH did not have much value to me. Being experienced and a firearms enthusiast I was comfortable in those situations. To the best of my ability, I trained inexperienced officers to be comfortable around individuals who concealed carried.

About the only time I thought the advanced notice was nice is if the vehicle I was stopping matches the description of a vehicle used in a violent crime. Unfortunately, there is not a way to have every officer respond the way that I do.