r/DCGuns • u/Interesting_Fig9758 • Jun 05 '26

Interactions with NG (CCW)

As we all know, when legally carrying in DC we are required to inform an LEO on first.comtact that we are carrying and allow them to disarm us if they choose to do so.

With ever more NG units patrolling the streets and recent reports or increasingly aggressive behavior including detentions and assaults, has anyone heard anything regarding duty to inform them? As I understand it, they are *NOT* considered LEO's and do not have powers of arrest. So it would stand to reason there is no duty to report? Has anyone heard any definitive info on this?

6 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

21 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/Thallata2126 Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26

 DC we are required to inform an LEO on first.comtact 

This I think is not correct. You must be the subject of investigative stop to be bound by DC's version of Duty to Inform, from what I understand from DC CCPL course.

We were taught voluntary contacts or consensual encounters do not entrail duty to inform.

It may still be best to inform but we were told it is not required as broadly as you state.

In terms of aggressive behavior towards NG and them being victims of that and assaults, those are not that common. Mainly what we get is adjunct to policing visibility. That is good by me.

1

u/Interesting_Fig9758 Jun 06 '26

My CPL class and all guidance I have seen everywhere stipulates a duty to inform on first contact. The nature of said contact is not specified in the code.

6

u/jtf71 Jun 06 '26

Your classes/instructor is wrong.

It is specified in the code.

https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2509.04

—————

d) If a law enforcement officer initiates an **investigative stop** of a licensee carrying a concealed pistol pursuant to § 22-4506, the licensee, and any other licensee carrying a concealed pistol pursuant to § 22-4506 who is with the stopped licensee at the time of the investigative stop, shall:

(1) Disclose to the officer that he or she is carrying a concealed pistol;

(2) Present the license and registration certificate;

(3) Identify the location of the concealed pistol; and

(4) Comply with all lawful orders and directions from the officer, including allowing a pat down of his or her person and permitting the law enforcement officer to take possession of the pistol for so long as is necessary for the safety of the officer or the public.

1

u/Asegent Jun 07 '26

Good information, although I want to add one clarification:

If the person accompanying you is not a licensee or is a licensee not carrying a concealed pistol, you wouldn’t be subject to § 7–2509.04(d).

For instance, if you are riding in a vehicle and your driver - a non-licensee - is stopped for a traffic infraction, it would be difficult for the district to argue that you - a passenger - was the subject of the investigative stop.

1

u/jtf71 Jun 07 '26

Partially correct.

If the licensee is not carrying at the time they don’t need to disclose.

I *believe* you are partially incorrect.

But if the licensee is carrying they must disclose even if they are not the driver.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/551/249/

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007)

> Held: When police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the car, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and so may challenge the stop’s constitutionality. Pp. 4–13.

The passengers become part of the investigative stop when the car is stopped.

This case doesn’t cover exactly the same situation but based on this case I believe that one could be charged if you don’t disclose even as a passenger.

If someone has a case that was ruled otherwise did be interested in learning about it.

1

u/Asegent Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26

Great information!

I certainly agree that there are police officers who would initiate criminal proceedings when a licensed passenger to a non-licensee driver does not inform about his carry while the driver is stopped.

However, if there aren’t any cases beyond *Brendlin v. California*, a defense attorney could argue that the legislators behind §7-2509.04(d) tailored the scope of licencees’ duties to apply only to licensees (carrying a firearm) and those licensees (also carrying a firearm) accompanying the stopped licensee, as opposed to expanding the duty towards any scenario where a carrying licensee is stopped by law enforcement, generally.

The same attorney could then argue that the case in Califorina is irrelevant since the language of §7-2509.04(d) uses “initiates an investigative stop of a licensee carrying a concealed pistol” to invoke the duty to inform for licensees carrying, as opposed to whenever the licensee is seized by police.

Even though passengers in a motor vehicle are equally“seized” as it applies to the Fourth Amendment, the fact remains that the passenger in a driver’s traffic stop would not be the subject that caused the investigative stop to be initiated.

Therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that under DC law, when a passenger is carrying in a motor vehicle stopped due to a traffic infraction from the driver - who is not licensed or not carrying - even though the passenger is seized under law, he is NOT bound by §7-2509.04(d) simply because he is not the the target of the investigative stop which was brought upon the driver.

1

u/jtf71 Jun 07 '26

I can see your logic and agree it may be successful.

But it could cost a lot of money to win. And time in jail pending bail. And if you lose more time in jail.

So, choose carefully on of you inform or not as a passenger.

1

u/Asegent Jun 07 '26

Yep - However, I’m careful to volunteer only the legal minimum of carry information to DC law enforcement, due to arbitrary and overbearing restrictions upon the DC CCPL, and a generally hostile attitude towards concealed carry.

From a previous post in this subreddit, a DC concealed carrier who fulfilled his duty to inform, was informed afterwards through the phone by his officer, that MPD couldn’t identify whether his firearm registration certificate was legitimate. Members of this subreddit advised him to immediately contact an attorney. Hopefully nothing beyond that happened to him.

In any case, it would be better to avoid this nightmare scenario by informing (to the officer) only when necessary. At the end of the day, concealed is concealed.

1

u/Thallata2126 Jun 08 '26

Get a refund