Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
All The Open Carry Folks wanted a court decision......
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Blurplers" data-source="post: 1900777" data-attributes="member: 12799"><p>Terry v. Ohio: all it would take is for him to be speeding 1 mph over the speed limit for a crime to have been committed. i havent read this case and dont intend to. dont have the time, since im working right now. u said " I am not required to show ID, but if I open carry, I now have to(according to state law that will become effective Nov 1)." So from wat u said all of us who open carry will have to show ID to a PO if stopped for whatever reason. So how is that any different with this guy and his AK? he was open carrying. therefore he was stopped, and had to show that he was carrying legally as well at the gun was legal. How is it any different that a Game Warden approaching u when ur hunting, asking to see ur hunting license? Game Wardens have just as much legal experience as any PO if not more since they have to deal with the hunting legal issues. " The presence of a firearm does not produce reasonable suspicion of a crime so without that suspicion of a crime what makes it OK for an officer to violate my rights?" If you were carrying a "normal firearm", the chances of u getting stopped in a situation like this AK guy did are slim at best. if you are carrying an rifle or rifle type weapon, that alone is suspicion that a crime may have been committed and perfectly legal for a PO to stop and check u. If you were carrying a 1911 openly or any other similar weapon, u damn sure ppl are going to get stopped come Nov 1st. its going to happen regardless. No. 1 if a PO stopped me to check i was carrying legally and disarmed me to check everything out. HELL no i wouldnt mind. i wouldnt react like an ass or be unhappy. he is doing his job. U just said you thought that this stop by this PO was 100% legal. but u keep contradicting the legality of it. " The presence of a firearm does not produce reasonable suspicion of a crime so without that suspicion of a crime what makes it OK for an officer to violate my rights?" A regular pistol may not produce reasonable suspicion, but an AK does. so i really dont understand if u think this guys' rights were violated or if the PO was well within the legal doctrine of stopping this guy. ur words seem way to contradicting to me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Blurplers, post: 1900777, member: 12799"] Terry v. Ohio: all it would take is for him to be speeding 1 mph over the speed limit for a crime to have been committed. i havent read this case and dont intend to. dont have the time, since im working right now. u said " I am not required to show ID, but if I open carry, I now have to(according to state law that will become effective Nov 1)." So from wat u said all of us who open carry will have to show ID to a PO if stopped for whatever reason. So how is that any different with this guy and his AK? he was open carrying. therefore he was stopped, and had to show that he was carrying legally as well at the gun was legal. How is it any different that a Game Warden approaching u when ur hunting, asking to see ur hunting license? Game Wardens have just as much legal experience as any PO if not more since they have to deal with the hunting legal issues. " The presence of a firearm does not produce reasonable suspicion of a crime so without that suspicion of a crime what makes it OK for an officer to violate my rights?" If you were carrying a "normal firearm", the chances of u getting stopped in a situation like this AK guy did are slim at best. if you are carrying an rifle or rifle type weapon, that alone is suspicion that a crime may have been committed and perfectly legal for a PO to stop and check u. If you were carrying a 1911 openly or any other similar weapon, u damn sure ppl are going to get stopped come Nov 1st. its going to happen regardless. No. 1 if a PO stopped me to check i was carrying legally and disarmed me to check everything out. HELL no i wouldnt mind. i wouldnt react like an ass or be unhappy. he is doing his job. U just said you thought that this stop by this PO was 100% legal. but u keep contradicting the legality of it. " The presence of a firearm does not produce reasonable suspicion of a crime so without that suspicion of a crime what makes it OK for an officer to violate my rights?" A regular pistol may not produce reasonable suspicion, but an AK does. so i really dont understand if u think this guys' rights were violated or if the PO was well within the legal doctrine of stopping this guy. ur words seem way to contradicting to me. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
All The Open Carry Folks wanted a court decision......
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom