What the Hell?

[1shot(bob)]

What right does the SDA grant you, specifically?

Reread the thread for my post that quotes the SDA as specifically saying that it does not grant the officer the right to seize your weapon.

Dude ... talk about personal attacks ... that just ain't right. All stops are not the same. What is appropriate for one stop is inappropriate for another. It is up to the officer to determine what is appropriate and what is not and as long as he can articulate his position there is no lawful reason to disobey a request to relinquish a firearm.

I have already agreed that there may be a reason to disarm a person given the right circumstances. Stopping someone for a burned out tail light or for speeding is not one of those cases, unless there is some reasonable explanation or probable cause to do so. I see no reason to disarm someone because they were pulled over for speeding. If they were high or drunk, then maybe. if they were belligerent and acted out in a certain way, maybe. A simple uncomplicated speeding stop is not a reason to disarm someone. His feeling of safety should not trump my right to carry.

 

[BadgeBunny]

Even though the SDA specifically says:

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.

OK ... where are you getting that you have a right to not have your weapon removed by an officer?

ETA: I see where you are coming from but your reasoning is flawed. Like I said before, this part of the SDA does NOT give you an absolute right to refuse to relinquish a firearm. All it does is state that the officer must be able to articulate probable cause.

Now, whether you agree or disagree with how probable cause is determined is a completely different matter. In the end though, the SDA is not the landmark language you are looking for.

 

[Lone Wolf '49]

And the beat goes on, the beat goes on.

 

[BadgeBunny]

And the beat goes on, the beat goes on.

Hey you!!

 

[1shot(bob)]

Even though the SDA specifically says:

OK ... where are you getting that you have a right to not have your weapon removed by an officer?

ETA: I see where you are coming from but your reasoning is flawed. Like I said before, this part of the SDA does NOT give you an absolute right to refuse to relinquish a firearm. All it does is state that the officer must be able to articulate probable cause.

Now, whether you agree or disagree with how probable cause is determined is a completely different matter. In the end though, the SDA is not the landmark language you are looking for.

The part that says: "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."

I guess the real question is what do they mean by crime?
Amazingly even Michael agrees with me, but makes allowances for other officers that don't. You quoted it in a recent post.
Without extenuating circumstances, the officer is not authorized to inspect my weapon. It's written as clear as the Second Amendment itself.

 

[BadgeBunny]

The part that says: "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."

I guess the real question is what do they mean by crime?
Amazingly even Michael agrees with me, but makes allowances for other officers that don't. You quoted it in a recent post.
Without extenuating circumstances, the officer is not authorized to inspect my weapon. It's written as clear as the Second Amendment itself.

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.

 

[Werewolf]

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.

The basis for Michael's argument is that the Terry decision essentially nullifies the SDA since fed law trumps state law.

Terry is very specific in that it makes the point that an officer must believe that a suspect is both armed and dangerous.

As I stated before in a previous post one can rationally connect the dots and claim that being armed makes one dangerous. Whether that is a reasonable claim is really the subject of discussion here. Having a CCW is pretty much a state issued good guy certificate. If the holder informs an officer he is holding, has a license etc etc odds are pretty darn high he's a good guy (or a really, really stupid bad guy).

Unless an officer can articulate why he believes the driver to be dangerous he can't disarm per the SDA as Terry does not apply.

If Terry does not apply then the AG's opinion is irrelevant.

That said there is mucho case law that says one must comply with an officer's requests/orders whether lawful or not in almost all cases the only exceptions to the best of my knowledge being orders for one to perform criminal acts.

So for all practical matters you do what a cop says and take it up with their bosses later.

 

[BadgeBunny]

And again, there is no absolute right to refuse to relinquish a firearm when asked to do so by a commissioned officer in the performance of his lawful duties.

I personally disagree with the having a CCL holder is a good guy pass. For the basis of this discussion whether or not that is true is, like many of the other observations made thoughout this thread, irrelevant.

 

[JB Books]

Bob, make no mistake, if I thought an officer was out of line, I'd tell him. If I thought he was too out of line, I'd sue him and make a pointed effort to make it as miserable and costly for him as possible. However, he'd he have to be way out of line for me to do that.

The only negative experience I have had with an LEO and CCL is once about 11 years ago, I had just bought a Land Rover Defender. It was equipped with lights on a brush guard bar. I was in a small town near Tulsa. I came to a stop sign. Across the street, facing my direction, was a trooper. He flashed his brights at me. I flashed mine back at him because I knew my high beams were not on. He zoomed across the street, did a 180 in his car, came up behind me with his lights on. He hopped out of the car mad, bitching about my lights. I told him I had a CCW. He asked for it. I handed it to him. It was a Colt 1903 Hammerless .32 acp. He dropped the magazine and began tugging on the slide. He couldn't open it. I asked him what he was doing.

"Unloading your gun!" he barked.

"Why?" I asked.

"Because I want to." he spat.

"Ok, well, I am just going to reload it when you give it back to me." I smiled.

"I don't care what you do." He said furiously tugging at the slide.

"Well give it to me and I'll take the round out of the chamber. I don't want you to tear the damn thing up. It's an antique." I held out my hand. Red faced he handed it back to me. I unchambered the round and put the pistol in my pocket. I told him I had just bought the car, still had the sticker in the center console and had absolutely no idea how to turn off the fog lights. I asked him if I could borrow his flash light and look under the dash. Reluctantly, he handed me the light. It took a couple of minutes, but I found the switch. I handed him his light and smiled and said thanks. He grunted and stomped back his car and left.

Now, do I think he acted like a jerk? Sure. Do I think it was silly to unload my little Colt? Absolutely. Was he probably having a **** day and just frustrated? Who knows? And who cares? I was driving off with psycho blonde goddess girlfriend and certainly had other things on my mind.

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.

 

[Michael Brown]

The basis for Michael's argument is that the Terry decision essentially nullifies the SDA since fed law trumps state law.

Terry is very specific in that it makes the point that an officer must believe that a suspect is both armed and dangerous.

As I stated before in a previous post one can rationally connect the dots and claim that being armed makes one dangerous. Whether that is a reasonable claim is really the subject of discussion here. Having a CCW is pretty much a state issued good guy certificate. If the holder informs an officer he is holding, has a license etc etc odds are pretty darn high he's a good guy (or a really, really stupid bad guy).

Unless an officer can articulate why he believes the driver to be dangerous he can't disarm per the SDA as Terry does not apply.

If Terry does not apply then the AG's opinion is irrelevant.

That said there is mucho case law that says one must comply with an officer's requests/orders whether lawful or not in almost all cases the only exceptions to the best of my knowledge being orders for one to perform criminal acts.

So for all practical matters you do what a cop says and take it up with their bosses later.

The sky has officially fallen........

Repent for the end is near!

Michael Brown