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="Werewolf" data-source="post: 1554147" data-attributes="member: 239"><p>A very thought provoking response, Michael:</p><p></p><p>So based on Terry:</p><p></p><p>...the OK law as written is essentially moot if the officer considers the liscencee dangerous since any traffic stop is based on a driver having committed a crime even if only a misdeamor.</p><p></p><p>That said Michael: the key to making your analysis valid that it is within an officer's right to disarm on a traffic stop is the "may be armed <strong>and</strong> presently dangerous" part of Terry. One could connect the dots and logically arrive at the conclusion that any CCW liscencee, being armed, is therefore automatically dangerous (a stretch IMO) thus making the OK law essentially moot as all an officer must do if questioned about disarming a motorist after the fact is voice a belief that the motorist seemed to be dangerous. </p><p></p><p>Though I do not believe that officers are routinely disarming motorists with CCW's, based on much narrative evidence (narrative being all that is available to me as I have not been stopped for a traffic violation in the last 20 years or so to the best of my recollection) there is still a whole lot of room for abuse.</p><p></p><p>However, it seems to me, that the way the law is worded......that the intent of the legislature is to prohibit OK peace officers from automatically disarming CCW holders during a traffic stop unless probable cause that some other more serious crime has been or will be commited. If that truly is the intent then Terry only applies as noted above (which IMO won't be very often).</p><p></p><p>If that was not the intent of the law then the only conclusions that can be drawn about the law is that the legislature created a law that they knew had no teeth to pander to the gun rights crowd or they were ignorant of the law regarding Terry v Ohio. </p><p></p><p>Neither conclusion paints the legislature in a very good light but that's a whole 'nother discussion.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Werewolf, post: 1554147, member: 239"] A very thought provoking response, Michael: So based on Terry: ...the OK law as written is essentially moot if the officer considers the liscencee dangerous since any traffic stop is based on a driver having committed a crime even if only a misdeamor. That said Michael: the key to making your analysis valid that it is within an officer's right to disarm on a traffic stop is the "may be armed [B]and[/B] presently dangerous" part of Terry. One could connect the dots and logically arrive at the conclusion that any CCW liscencee, being armed, is therefore automatically dangerous (a stretch IMO) thus making the OK law essentially moot as all an officer must do if questioned about disarming a motorist after the fact is voice a belief that the motorist seemed to be dangerous. Though I do not believe that officers are routinely disarming motorists with CCW's, based on much narrative evidence (narrative being all that is available to me as I have not been stopped for a traffic violation in the last 20 years or so to the best of my recollection) there is still a whole lot of room for abuse. However, it seems to me, that the way the law is worded......that the intent of the legislature is to prohibit OK peace officers from automatically disarming CCW holders during a traffic stop unless probable cause that some other more serious crime has been or will be commited. If that truly is the intent then Terry only applies as noted above (which IMO won't be very often). If that was not the intent of the law then the only conclusions that can be drawn about the law is that the legislature created a law that they knew had no teeth to pander to the gun rights crowd or they were ignorant of the law regarding Terry v Ohio. Neither conclusion paints the legislature in a very good light but that's a whole 'nother discussion. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
What the Hell?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
