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: 1555621" data-attributes="member: 239"><p>The basis for Michael's argument is that the Terry decision essentially nullifies the SDA since fed law trumps state law.</p><p></p><p>Terry is very specific in that it makes the point that an officer must believe that a suspect is both armed <strong>and</strong> dangerous.</p><p></p><p>As I stated before in a previous post one can rationally connect the dots and claim that being armed makes one dangerous. <strong>Whether that is a reasonable claim is really the subject of discussion here</strong>. 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).</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>If Terry does not apply then the AG's opinion is irrelevant.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>So for all practical matters you do what a cop says and take it up with their bosses later.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Werewolf, post: 1555621, member: 239"] 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 [B]and[/B] dangerous. As I stated before in a previous post one can rationally connect the dots and claim that being armed makes one dangerous. [B]Whether that is a reasonable claim is really the subject of discussion here[/B]. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
What the Hell?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom