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
What the Hell?
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="Michael Brown" data-source="post: 1553837" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>The Attorney General has plainly stated that "inspection" does not affect the issues laid out in Terry V. Ohio and is superseded by federal caselaw.</p><p></p><p>The legislators who wrote it were concerned about officers using traffic stops as opportunities to check for stolen guns or to develop a database of serial numbers, not to deny the officer the safety that caselaw provides him/her.</p><p></p><p>However since the Terry decision is usually applied to potential criminal activity that might be assisted by a firearm, before I would choose to disarm someone, I would be certain I had reason to do so, not disarm someone as a matter of course.</p><p></p><p>However, it is unlikely that an officer will articulate his suspicion if he is diasarming you via Terry, and he is under absolutely no obligation to do so, so my advice would be to do exactly as he says until the duration of the contact is over and if you feel your rights have been violated, file a complaint later.</p><p></p><p>The only time I have disarmed a CCW holder was when the individual had committed some other type of crime or had shot someone in self-defense in which case the disarming was for evidentiary purposes not officer safety.</p><p></p><p>I am not in favor of disarming someone during the course of a traffic stop but the legislation's intent is not to prevent it from occurring on the basis of officer safety.</p><p></p><p>Michael Brown</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael Brown, post: 1553837, member: 18"] The Attorney General has plainly stated that "inspection" does not affect the issues laid out in Terry V. Ohio and is superseded by federal caselaw. The legislators who wrote it were concerned about officers using traffic stops as opportunities to check for stolen guns or to develop a database of serial numbers, not to deny the officer the safety that caselaw provides him/her. However since the Terry decision is usually applied to potential criminal activity that might be assisted by a firearm, before I would choose to disarm someone, I would be certain I had reason to do so, not disarm someone as a matter of course. However, it is unlikely that an officer will articulate his suspicion if he is diasarming you via Terry, and he is under absolutely no obligation to do so, so my advice would be to do exactly as he says until the duration of the contact is over and if you feel your rights have been violated, file a complaint later. The only time I have disarmed a CCW holder was when the individual had committed some other type of crime or had shot someone in self-defense in which case the disarming was for evidentiary purposes not officer safety. I am not in favor of disarming someone during the course of a traffic stop but the legislation's intent is not to prevent it from occurring on the basis of officer safety. Michael Brown [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
What the Hell?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom