and they ask them..."where you guys heading??"........ahhhhh crap
I'd forgotten that one ... Thanks for the giggle ...
and they ask them..."where you guys heading??"........ahhhhh crap
Your bolded text pertains to UNCONCEALED carry, although your point is understood as IIRC there is similar, if not exact language present in the law pertaining to conceal carry. And, standing on it's own in this discussion, would lead a layperson to the wrong legal conclusion.
You're probably thinking of 1290.8 E:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly concealed or unconcealed without probable cause that a crime has been committed."
It's amazing how rife the SDA is with ambiguous words. What does "inspect" mean? I don't know, but I like to think the intent is that a LEO is supposed to leave the gun in its holster unless he has probably cause. I also dislike the vague "probable cause that a crime has been committed." Committed by who? Where? When? I wouldn't push the issue.
Anywho, the inclusion of the word "unconcealed" in paragraph B was actually a mistake in the text of the bill. It wasn't intended to be there and the next round of cleanups to the SDA will ideally remove it.
I wasn't gonna point this out but decided it was important to the discussion. AKGuy's post indicates, though doesn't explicitedly state, that he was carrying concealed. Your bolded text pertains to UNCONCEALED carry, although your point is understood as IIRC there is similar, if not exact language present in the law pertaining to conceal carry. And, standing on it's own in this discussion, would lead a layperson to the wrong legal conclusion.
Regardless of the law, after he disarmed there should not have been a "gun toss". Can we all at least agree on that?
... Irregardless of legislative mistakes and legal wranglings over the plain definition of words, it has been WIDELY held that officers are allowed to disarm if they can articulate a reason to do so. I'm not saying it is right ... or wrong ... just that it is so ... (Although, to be clear, I am FIRMLY in the "it is right" category.)
I am not an attorney ... nor do I want to be one. But I've been around lawyers, politicians, criminals (both "alleged" and "actual') enough to know that reading only a statute is not enough to determine whether you are in the "right" or "wrong" ... Oftentimes even getting a legal opinion will not save you from a ton of grief and heartache ... not to mention a much, much lighter wallet ... But then ... I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
Wow all this for a cracked windshield... I feel much safer in the streets now.
Enter your email address to join: