First traffic stop in a few decades

I am guessing "license to carry"

The fact that a permit holder must disclose it to law enforcement has always bothered me. If they want to search my car, well okay, here’s my permit. It sounds like the officer felt the same way. Then again, I guess a disclosure is safer for all involved. You did well.

"Duty to inform" was an obligation in Texas when I got licensed, not sure how things changed since constitutional carry went into effect.  I was lead to believe police have access to that information in the state based on DMV records being linked.  It is and will continue to be my process during a traffic stop to present both driver's license and my LTC.  My brother in Michigan makes it a process to recite a dialogue when stopped.  Hands on the steering wheel, advised officer he has a concealed weapons permit (LCP in Michigan) and asks how he wishes for him to proceed.  

Last time I was pulled over (very long time ago) I was directly asked if there were any weapons in the car.

My understanding in Nevada is once they bring you up in the system, they know if you have a *concealed firearms permit*.

If I am carrying, I want the Officer to know the score about weapons in the environment. I would also hand over both my DL and my CFP.

If there are no weapons with me, I don't feel obligated to tell the officer anything in advance.

I also would never go "racing around" with my hands during any engagement with LE.

In my concealed carry training they suggested teh process that Auf Kiltre said his brother uses....pretty much verbatim. So I've always figured I'd go with that. I have no problem informing them if I'm carrying....I honestly think it's a good thing that we all know where we stand. No surprises is a good thing when dealing with the police.

From our training the sample dialog went like this:
citizen: "Before we move on I should inform you that I have a concealed carry permit."
Cop: "Are you currently carrying a weapon?"
citizen: "Yes I am. How would you like to proceed"

Then let them guide the interaction from there.

@auf Kiltre - can you describe the interaction more. When you say required to produce...did he ask you or did you just give it to him first thing?

The cops I've talked to have no problem with people carrying.  I think they realize that the licensed carriers are not the problem and can actually be a good thing. 

I also had 3 in my life, and got them within 3 weeks of each other. One was for going 47 in a 40. All were below 52mph (51 in a 35 was the big one).

Not really sure what was going on that month and why I was in such a hurry.

I got pulled over a few years ago - speeding in a construction zone, but it was a Sunday morning with no workers present and I wasn't aware it still applied. I was doing 42ish - a road where with no construction people go 50, posted limit was 25. There was nothing there except clean roads and traffic cones. He let me go. He asked me if I had any weapons (I remember "weapons" instead of "firearms", but I could be wrong) in the car, and I reflexively laughed because it is so far out of my personality and caught me off guard. I thought I might get in trouble for that, but he seemed to get it.

It makes sense. A cop pulling someone over isn't going to know if/how it is going to escalate and needs to survey the situation. The more they know early, the fewer split second decisions need to happen. A law abiding citizen will respectfully disclose that they're armed. I see no reason to deviate from this. Even in the days long before guns, disclosing your armed status and showing it put away and not a threat was considered part of a polite greeting.

I'm not at all comfortable about his asking a passenger for their license. On what grounds is that justified ? You were speeding=justifiable reason for stop. What crime or suspicion was your wife doing?

I’m a speed limit guy who uses cruise control a lot. The road we live on is the worst. It’s a nice winding slightly hilly country road with lots of driveways and a 45mph speed limit. I might be one of a handful of people who keep it at 47 or so.

I guess those drivers of the smaller cars like seeing their reflections in my rear bumper.

As a retired LEO, I was enjoying all of the reasonable and practical replies herein, which differ greatly from all the hysteria and angst I see on the TV news and in the newspaper about these issues.

Then I read rok's post, which I found disturbing. After reading it a few times, though, I have no problem believing it, unfortunately, and I applaud the way he handled it.

I was the training sergeant at my former agency for a long time back in the '90s, so it was my job getting the new hires trained up. I was not involved in the hiring of these new officers, just their training. And I can tell you this, out of every four people hired, one would be an outstanding officer, two would work out fine (most of the time), and the fourth would be a disaster and totally in the wrong occupation. The officer in rok's scenario would be, of course, of this last group.  (I should say that these are "ballpark" figures.)

So, according to this theory of mine, 25% of the time that you are dealing with a LEO, you are dealing with someone who is not very good at his job. It is not easy to weed these people out for lots of reasons.

A foil hat?