In this case the perp was a felon, so, yeah, it should be a little different. At least in OK.
In this case the perp was a felon, so, yeah, it should be a little different. At least in OK.
Putting your life on the line does not mean sacrificing yourself in a haphazard fashion.
Michael Brown
Since no police officers serve on the Supreme Court of the United States, I believe your post is irrelevent.
I think it would be obvious to even a casual observer that police officers do attempt (successful or not) to protect individual citizens on a regular basis.
Michael Brown
Call me crazy, but if asked to hand over my weapon temporarily by a LEO during a stop while we conduct business, I wouldn't have much of an issue doing it. 
I don't sweat complying with this request, nor do I don't feel my safety is compromised by doing this. Generally people are not victims of robbery or assault while they are a participant in a traffic stop.
Now if the weapon is not returned, effectively confiscated or seized, then an issue arises.
I don't sweat complying with this request, nor do I don't feel my safety is compromised by doing this. Generally people are not victims of robbery or assault while they are a participant in a traffic stop.Now if the weapon is not returned, effectively confiscated or seized, then an issue arises.
I don't have any problem with an officer wanting the weapon in his control during a stop if it makes them feel safer. As long as I get it back afterwards he's done his business. I'm law abiding and I'm not worried about it as long as the cop isn't trying to seize my weapon because he doesn't think I need one. My issue with the whole story is that the courts decided that the fact he, THE FELON was in possession of a weapon and admitted ownership of said weapon, could not be used as reason to assest THE FELON for a weapons violation!
ETA: in the couple times I was pulled over (got warning) the cop asked what I was carrying and where it was but has never even asked to see it let alone take it.
ETA: in the couple times I was pulled over (got warning) the cop asked what I was carrying and where it was but has never even asked to see it let alone take it.
Call me crazy, but if asked to hand over my weapon temporarily by a LEO during a stop while we conduct business, I wouldn't have much of an issue doing it.
Now if the weapon is not returned, effectively confiscated or seized, then an issue arises.
Even though the SDA specifically says:
angsniper,
Yea I caught that and suspected that is why you posted this. Funny how the felon apparently had a right (per the lower courts) to have his weapon, so his being in possession of the weapon was not reason enough to arrest him and seize it. I had some text relating to that in my post, but I deleted it as it was getting too long.
1shot(bob),
I guess it comes down to your definition of "inspect." I can take control and promptly return something without inspecting it, no?
It also depends on the definition of our "rights." If our rights were truly inalienable, we would be able to carry everywhere, and we wouldn't have court cases such as Heller and McDonald.
Yea I caught that and suspected that is why you posted this. Funny how the felon apparently had a right (per the lower courts) to have his weapon, so his being in possession of the weapon was not reason enough to arrest him and seize it. I had some text relating to that in my post, but I deleted it as it was getting too long.
1shot(bob),
I guess it comes down to your definition of "inspect." I can take control and promptly return something without inspecting it, no?
It also depends on the definition of our "rights." If our rights were truly inalienable, we would be able to carry everywhere, and we wouldn't have court cases such as Heller and McDonald.
The vast majority of our problems with this country (IMHO) is just what you are talking about here: semantics. It depends on what the definition of 'is' is. We aren't at war with libya, we are merely in a hostile situation. I could go on and on.
If my weapon is properly concealed, properly licensed, and hidden from view according to law, why do even need to see it or 'take control' of it?
Exactly on the rights issue. So if my 'right' is to carry a gun why do I have to suspend that right for your peace of mind. Especially if by doing so it violates my peace of mind?
I cannot rebut these points because, as we've established, they are subjective and semantics. I think overall we are in agreement (we wouldn't be involved in this forum otherwise) in principle, but perhaps to slightly different degrees on what constitutes "reasonable" regulation. I most certainly agree that twisting the applicability of legislation beyond it's intent is a vast problem in our country (or everywhere, for that matter). I do very much enjoy the discourse.
All the best.
All the best.
Though a person who is not a felon who is stopped has certain rights as a citizen...people seem to forget that a police officer is also a citizen and entitled to certain rights as well. I could cite hundreds of cases where Law enforcement officers were injured and or shot from non felons transporting / concealing firearms. Now granted the vast majority of gun owners in my experience are soft spoken, courteous, and law abiding but that does not mean that all of them are. On a traffic stop when someone hands me their SDA card I usually simply ask where do you Carry your firearm, and then I simply tell them with a smile that if they don't reach for theirs I wont reach for mine and leave it at that. But there have been instances where I have removed the person from the gun and I don't think twice about it and I will continue to do it...
Similar threads
