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="BadgeBunny" data-source="post: 1555747" data-attributes="member: 1242"><p>First of all, I never said that you were bashing or diminishing Michael's opinion. I was simply pointing out that an opinion (no matter whose it is) is neither more nor less valid than anyone elses with regard to this matter. You pointed out that Michael agreed with your opinion and I pointed out that whether he agrees with you or not is irrelevant.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Semantics matter in this case?? What semantics?? "Without probable cause that a crime has been committed" is about as clear a statement as there has ever been in a statute. No where in the statute is there any restrictions on an officer other than the requirement of probable cause. Probable cause and extenuating circumstances are not the same thing.</p><p></p><p>Again ...</p><p></p><p><strong>TITLE 21 § 1290.8. Possession of license required-notification to police of gun</strong></p><p><strong>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.</strong></p><p></p><p>Section E simply states that probable cause is needed in order for an officer to inspect a properly concealed weapon. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not address your "right" to disobey a command from a law enforcement officer. </p><p></p><p>You are running on emotion and reading WAY too much into the statute. You may or may not be able to find the answers you are looking for elsewhere. But, again, the language in the statute is plain and no where does it state that an officer does not have the right to ask for your weapon, ( it states that this section does not authorize him to inspect a properly concealed weapon without probable cause that a crime has been committed) nor does it state that you have the right to refuse to relinquish that weapon.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BadgeBunny, post: 1555747, member: 1242"] First of all, I never said that you were bashing or diminishing Michael's opinion. I was simply pointing out that an opinion (no matter whose it is) is neither more nor less valid than anyone elses with regard to this matter. You pointed out that Michael agreed with your opinion and I pointed out that whether he agrees with you or not is irrelevant. Semantics matter in this case?? What semantics?? "Without probable cause that a crime has been committed" is about as clear a statement as there has ever been in a statute. No where in the statute is there any restrictions on an officer other than the requirement of probable cause. Probable cause and extenuating circumstances are not the same thing. Again ... [B]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.[/B] Section E simply states that probable cause is needed in order for an officer to inspect a properly concealed weapon. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not address your "right" to disobey a command from a law enforcement officer. You are running on emotion and reading WAY too much into the statute. You may or may not be able to find the answers you are looking for elsewhere. But, again, the language in the statute is plain and no where does it state that an officer does not have the right to ask for your weapon, ( it states that this section does not authorize him to inspect a properly concealed weapon without probable cause that a crime has been committed) nor does it state that you have the right to refuse to relinquish that weapon. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
What the Hell?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom