What the Hell?

[MoBoost]

My point is this, LEO do a job that is dangerous and thankless. They put in long hours and are certainly not compensated commensurate with what they deserve. Everyday, the majority of people with whom they come into contact are typically liars and dirtbags. So, if an officer wants to disarm me for the duration of the stop, I am not going to complain.

+1!!!!

 

[1shot(bob)]

But like you said, that is Michael's opinion. And his opinion holds exactly the same weight as your opinion when it comes to the law.

And no, the real question is NOT "what do they mean by crime" either. The question is "Do you have the right to refuse a lawful request by an officer to relinquish a fire arm under the SDA?" And the answer is "No, you do not".

Nor is "extenuating circumstances" mentioned in that quote. The only thing an officer needs is "probable cause". Like I have said repeatedly, if an officer can articulate a valid reason for wanting to relieve a CCL holder of his firearm he is legally within his powers as a law enforcement officer to do so.

The language you quoted from the SDA does not give you the absolute right to refuse to relinquish a firearm.

I am not bashing or diminishing Michael's opinion or mine. They both have equal weight in this discussion.

Semantics matter in this case.

without probable cause that a crime has been committed

If my 'speeding' is a crime then he has probable cause that a crime has been committed (my speeding). I don't think that is what the legislators had in mind though.
'Probable cause' would be extenuating circumstances - i.e. he pulled me over and found 'probable cause' or 'extenuating circumstances' above and beyond the original speeding violation (maybe a back seat full of drugs, or illegal weapons).

According to the SDA the officer does NOT have a lawful right to ask for my weapon. Since his request is not lawful I am not required by law to abide by it. If his request was lawful, I would abide by it.
Now, if the officer can articulate a valid reason why I should be disarmed I will allow it. His 'feeling of safety' is not a valid reason for me to be disarmed.

 

[1shot(bob)]

My point is this, LEO do a job that is dangerous and thankless. They put in long hours and are certainly not compensated commensurate with what they deserve. Everyday, the majority of people with whom they come into contact are typically liars and dirtbags. So, if an officer wants to disarm me for the duration of the stop, I am not going to complain.

I work in TV so I know exactly what that is all about.

 

[Lone Wolf '49]

And the beat goes on, the beat goes on.

And the beat goes on even in TV! HA!

 

[BadgeBunny]

I am not bashing or diminishing Michael's opinion or mine. They both have equal weight in this discussion.

Semantics matter in this case.



If my 'speeding' is a crime then he has probable cause that a crime has been committed (my speeding). I don't think that is what the legislators had in mind though.
'Probable cause' would be extenuating circumstances - i.e. he pulled me over and found 'probable cause' or 'extenuating circumstances' above and beyond the original speeding violation (maybe a back seat full of drugs, or illegal weapons).

According to the SDA the officer does NOT have a lawful right to ask for my weapon. Since his request is not lawful I am not required by law to abide by it. If his request was lawful, I would abide by it.
Now, if the officer can articulate a valid reason why I should be disarmed I will allow it. His 'feeling of safety' is not a valid reason for me to be disarmed.

First of all, I never said that you were bashing or diminishing Michael's opinion. I was simply pointing out that an opinion (no matter whose it is) is neither more nor less valid than anyone elses with regard to this matter. You pointed out that Michael agreed with your opinion and I pointed out that whether he agrees with you or not is irrelevant.


Semantics matter in this case?? What semantics?? "Without probable cause that a crime has been committed" is about as clear a statement as there has ever been in a statute. No where in the statute is there any restrictions on an officer other than the requirement of probable cause. Probable cause and extenuating circumstances are not the same thing.

Again ...

TITLE 21 § 1290.8. Possession of license required-notification to police of gun
Section E - Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly concealed without probable cause that a crime has been committed.

Section E simply states that probable cause is needed in order for an officer to inspect a properly concealed weapon. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not address your "right" to disobey a command from a law enforcement officer.

You are running on emotion and reading WAY too much into the statute. You may or may not be able to find the answers you are looking for elsewhere. But, again, the language in the statute is plain and no where does it state that an officer does not have the right to ask for your weapon, ( it states that this section does not authorize him to inspect a properly concealed weapon without probable cause that a crime has been committed) nor does it state that you have the right to refuse to relinquish that weapon.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

My point is this, LEO do a job that is dangerous and thankless. They put in long hours and are certainly not compensated commensurate with what they deserve. Everyday, the majority of people with whom they come into contact are typically liars and dirtbags. So, if an officer wants to disarm me for the duration of the stop, I am not going to complain.

The only problem with this is it is against the law in Oklahoma.

Woody

 

[1shot(bob)]

All I can say BB is that you and I read that sentence completely different. If the officer has no right to inspect my weapon then I have no reason to turn it over to him. There's no emotion here. None at all. It clearly states that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly concealed without probable cause that a crime has been committed."
If you can't read that sentence and realize that no officer can inspect my weapon without probable cause that a crime has been committed, then there isn't a whole lot to say.

It seems that you're not reading what I'm posting. Since you're not I'm wasting my time and yours. If you want to know how I feel go back and re-read my posts. I'm not saying it again just so you can quote back what I said, then twist it with semantics, then claim there are no semantics, then restate what I said, then argue for it.

Have a nice evening BB.

 

[1shot(bob)]

The only problem with this is it is against the law in Oklahoma.

Woody

Thank you Woody.

 

[BadgeBunny]

All I can say BB is that you and I read that sentence completely different. If the officer has no right to inspect my weapon then I have no reason to turn it over to him. There's no emotion here. None at all. It clearly states that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly concealed without probable cause that a crime has been committed."
If you can't read that sentence and realize that no officer can inspect my weapon without probable cause that a crime has been committed, then there isn't a whole lot to say.

It seems that you're not reading what I'm posting. Since you're not I'm wasting my time and yours. If you want to know how I feel go back and re-read my posts. I'm not saying it again just so you can quote back what I said, then twist it with semantics, then claim there are no semantics, then restate what I said, then argue for it.

Have a nice evening BB.

I have read what you have posted.

It doesn't say an officer has no right to inspect your weapon. It says an officer has no right to inspect a properly concealed weapon without just cause.

I'm gonna go watch the JBTs violate some poor unsuspecting souls' civil liberties on "Bait Car" now. You have a good evening too.

 

[JB Books]

The only problem with this is it is against the law in Oklahoma.

Woody

Refuse to do so, and let me know how that works out for you.