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="1shot(bob)" data-source="post: 1555681" data-attributes="member: 1657"><p>I am not bashing or diminishing Michael's opinion or mine. They both have equal weight in this discussion.</p><p></p><p>Semantics matter in this case.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If my 'speeding' is a crime then he has probable cause that a crime has been committed (my speeding). I don't think that is what the legislators had in mind though.</p><p>'Probable cause' would be extenuating circumstances - i.e. he pulled me over and found 'probable cause' or 'extenuating circumstances' above and beyond the original speeding violation (maybe a back seat full of drugs, or illegal weapons).</p><p></p><p>According to the SDA the officer does NOT have a <strong>lawful</strong> right to ask for my weapon. Since his request is not <strong>lawful</strong> I am not required by law to abide by it. If his request was <strong>lawful</strong>, I would abide by it.</p><p>Now, if the officer can articulate a valid reason why I should be disarmed I will allow it. His 'feeling of safety' is not a valid reason for me to be disarmed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="1shot(bob), post: 1555681, member: 1657"] I am not bashing or diminishing Michael's opinion or mine. They both have equal weight in this discussion. Semantics matter in this case. If my 'speeding' is a crime then he has probable cause that a crime has been committed (my speeding). I don't think that is what the legislators had in mind though. 'Probable cause' would be extenuating circumstances - i.e. he pulled me over and found 'probable cause' or 'extenuating circumstances' above and beyond the original speeding violation (maybe a back seat full of drugs, or illegal weapons). According to the SDA the officer does NOT have a [B]lawful[/B] right to ask for my weapon. Since his request is not [B]lawful[/B] I am not required by law to abide by it. If his request was [B]lawful[/B], I would abide by it. Now, if the officer can articulate a valid reason why I should be disarmed I will allow it. His 'feeling of safety' is not a valid reason for me to be disarmed. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
What the Hell?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom