AND what about the FACT that all who practice OC [ except the LEO's ] do not practice weapon retention.
Saw this tidbit in the comments..
I do, and I'm positive other OC'ers do.. Also being proactive in being more aware of their surroundings.
Why would a LEO assume that ONLY other LEOs practice weapon retention? Closed minded?
Forgive me if I've snipped too much or taken you out of context, please."...I think the officer handled it perfectly, and left those numbnuts looking to start ****, with their jaws on the floor..."
"...Now, the same could be said about an AR15....... Or a Glock 17/22 (Glock 18 facsimile)..."
They need to get off their self made pedestals
Since full auto weapons are lawful in Oregon where was the RAS to even stop the guy. The guy clearly states he does not consent the Cop clearly states he needs to check to see if the weapon is full auto. Unlawful detention IMHO unless there is an Oregon law that says they can inspect full auto weapons when seen on the street.
The two citizens got exactly what they wanted, a wasted response.
Tomorrow they'll do the same thing again but the conversation will probably go like, "Okay, now This time, you carry the gun and I'll make the phone call." When they do that enough times, the officers and departments will get tired of playing the game and stop responding to hysterical complaints about non-illegal behavior.
166.272 Unlawful possession of machine guns, certain short-barreled firearms and firearms silencers. (1) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer if the person knowingly possesses any machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer.
(2) Unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is a Class B felony.
(3) A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating subsection (1) of this section if the person has in the person’s immediate possession documentation showing that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is registered as required under federal law.
(4) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer was registered as required under federal law. [1989 c.839 §13a; 1997 c.749 §8; 1997 c.798 §1]
this is what we should be looking at law wise.
And is that a bad thing? Training police agencies to investigate whether a crime has been committed before making an arrest, and becoming aware that not all MWAG calls are about crimes is a good thing, right?
The more extreme members of the forum would disagree with you, probably insisting that doing so would presume guilt and violate due process. I personally don't think such a law would be constitutional (Washington state or federal), since the state constitution doesn't specify what an "arms" is, and the federal mentions militia who would be fairly useless without military-grade weapons.
But a law phrased in such a way to allow an officer to check to see if a crime is being committed before taking stronger action is a good, common sense compromise to the laws we do have, leaving aside constitutionality.
If I'm not mistaken, the National Firearms Law also prohibits the possession of explosives as destructive devices.
Does that give a law enforcement officer the authority to stop and investigate everyone carrying one of these-
because it looks EXACTLY like one the 6-volt lanterns used in the Arizona bombings in May of this year?
Does it give an officer who spots this a child with a chunk of modeling clay in his hands the authority to stop and investigate whether or not it's really a block of explosives?
What if the officer spots one of these at a second-hand store?
He can't "function test" it without pulling the pin, so does that mean he should confiscate any and all of them he comes across just in case it's really one of these in disguise?
To the eye, the only difference between that and one of these is the paint....
I think most people would agree that those pictures are a lot more similar to each other than
is to
Pardon, but I couldn't help but notice that you had to change each and every one of the scenarios in order to answer. That's kinda frowned upon in debates.Example #1,
...
Example #2,
...
Example #3
My understanding was always that the first part of the second amendment "A well-regulated militia, being nessecary to the security of a free state"
See I always thought the term "well regulated militia" was applied in the sense that a free state needs to keep a state militia (which today would be the national guard) and maintaining a military force of some sort was nessecary for the security of the country. The second part "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" states that the citizenry shall have the right to bear arms to preserve liberty in the event that standing army or "militia" was acting unconstitutionally. At least I've heard it explained once that way before.
So first part applies to military and government forces, the second part of the 2A applies so that if the military becomes an arm of an unconstitutional government there would be some means to resists was the original intent of the 2A.