Encounters with LEOs

ethorman · Oct 25, 2012

Ok so here are my thoughts regarding encountering OK LEOs while OCing. I will give a few situations and what I have come up with my own opinion on how to handle them and what if any issues may arise. I will always comply with the officer, however I may not consent but I will not resist either. That being said here we go:

Situation 1: OCing while shopping at a Store. (Store allows open carry)

While open carrying inside a store a police officer notices my weapon and starts to head over in my direction. Seeing this, I stop what I am doing and wait for him to arrive. Upon his arrival he introduces himself and I do the same and he asks if I have a permit for the weapon in which I state yes. He then asks if he can see that along with my OK drivers license and I agree to that as well. He then does a visual inspection of both my DL and my WP (Weapons Permit). He then proceeds to call me in and check and see if there are any warrants standing for my arrest of if I am a felon. Upon hearing that I am good to go he returns my DL and WP and I am free to go.

Observations: IMO this is a classic 4th Ammendment violation, even though the LEO did everything legally under state law, and have every authority to do so. Reason for the violation the police officer singled me out only because I was carrying and demanded DL and WP (which is legal via state law). I was detained, even thought it doesnt mean you have to be arrested or put in a car, he had my DL and WP so I was not free to go there for a detainment.

Say for arguments sake that I had a warrant out for my arrest, and upon running me he found out and I was arrested, disarmed and sent to jail, this is very similar to Delaware vs. Prouse, in which a LEO had pulled over a car to check the driver for his DL when he found marajuana in the vehicle and the driver was then arrested. The officer had no RAS to pull over the driver other than to just check his DL and because of that found the illegal substance.

Situation 2. Being called in on a MWAG 911 call

While walking my dog I see a officer in his vehicle approach me (lights on or off). I stop and wait for him to come to my location or for him to tell me to come to him. He then asks if I have a permit for my weapon, and I respond yes. He then asks to see my DL and WP in which I comply and give them to him. He looks at them, and decides to run me thru the system. I come back with no warrants or that I am a felon so he gives me back my WP and DL and I am free to leave.

Observations: IMO this is not a 4th Ammendment violation. The officer was responding to a call therefore he has not singled me out and has every legal right to identify me and make sure that I am legally carrying in accordance with SDA. I was detained again, because he had my DL and WP so I was not free to go.

Some can argue that there is RAS that a crime is, may or has been commited, the crime being carrying a weapon without a permit. Therefore the officers have RAS to stop and check eveyone for their WP and DL. Remember that the officer does not have to tell you if RAS exists or not, or why or how he was there so how do you know if he singled you out or if he is responding to a call, unless they tell you?

**Both of the above situations if you are disarmed for any reason that is a violation of state law, unless you of course have a warrant, commited another crime, or are a felon.**

Situation 3. Pulled over for speeding while OCing

Driving down the road speeding and get pulled over. Of course pull out my DL, WP, and Insurance and when the officer approaches and asks for them give them those as well as tell him that I have a weapon in the car. The officer then disarms me, takes my DL, WP, pistol (Officer safety right), and returns my insurance upon verifying that it has not expired and goes back to his car and runs me to ensure I have no warrants or am a felon. He then returns, gives me back my DL, WP, pistol and has me sign my ticket (press hard lol) and I am free to go.

Observations: IMO this is a violation of state law, the original crime that was commited was speeding there was no other crime that was commited after the one that let the officer pull you over. However one could argue that when the officer approches the vehicle and sees that you are not wearing your seatbelt that could be the "other crime" and therefore he could disarm you. Its a techaniclaity however it would be consided legal IMO. Say that your wearing your seatbelt and after pulling you over the LEO has RAS that you have been drinking, he then can disarm you due to the fact of a DUI/DWI.

This is all my own opinon and I hope that I am understanding our laws and statue correct. Feel free to comment and let me know what your opinions are, remember this is OK, I really do not care about other states laws and how they would relate if I was there. Also remember IANAL. Thanks.

PS: Not a english major, and there may be mispellings...

mlr · Oct 25, 2012

ethorman said:
:SNIP:
Some can argue that there is RAS that a crime is, may or has been commited, the crime being carrying a weapon without a permit. Therefore the officers have RAS to stop and check eveyone for their WP and DL. Remember that the officer does not have to tell you if RAS exists or not, or why or how he was there so how do you know if he singled you out or if he is responding to a call, unless they tell you?:SNIP:

I have discussed this particular scenario with a few friends in law enforcement. a few of them believe that the fact there was a call creates RAS. My response top this is that unless the caller informed the police that they had reason to believe a crime was being committed where is the RAS?
Examples:
1)Caller reports a person with a gun and the caller knows or has been told the person does not have a permit or is a felon.

2)Caller reports a person with a gun who appears to be underage.

3)Caller reports a person acting suspiciously and just happens to be armed. Lets say the person is sneaking around like he is casing a home or business.

4) Caller reports a person who is walking down the street carrying a firearm in a community where the law does not prohibit him from doing so.

Would I be wrong to assume that in cases 1,2 &3 there is RAS. While in case 4 there is not? In the first three examples the caller is reporting a crime while in the fourth he is not.

Michael

MM_45 · Oct 25, 2012

I ride a motorcycle sometimes and ive been wondering would it be legal for a LEO to pull me over just for the fact im OCing on my motorcycle?

ethorman · Oct 25, 2012

I honestly think that OK will have to go thru a time period where there are a lot of cases. Call it a case law review period where actions of citizens and LEOs will be critiqued by judges throughout the state. I think only after that will we know more about where we stand, until then.... who knows.

docachna · Oct 25, 2012

Encounters with LEO's

A complicating factor is that apparently, your new statute purports to give LEO the right to stop an Open Carrier FOR NO OTHER REASON than to verify that they have a permit to carry a handgun. (I have not read the section, but it has been widely referred to. If someone can cite me to it, I would appreciate it.)

Without reading it, it seems it would be blatantly unconstitutional, if for no other reason than on Equal Protection grounds (I am NOT a constitutional scholar, BTW). My former state of residence (OH) did not have such a statutory "stop and ID" provision. The OC community there was VERY active in informing LEO that mere OC, ABSENT OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, did NOT constitute RAS to even stop and question, much less demand ID, much less demand CHL. I personally helped out in a letter-writing campaign to every agency in the state, notifying them of same. (However, one big difference was that in OH, you do NOT need any permit or license to OC. Anyone not otherwise legally barred from possessing a firearm could legally Open Carry a firearm in OH, including a handgun, subject to restricted areas, etc.).

Just look up training information disseminated by Akron PD and Cincinnati PD, informing their officers in no uncertain terms that OC ALONE was a LEGAL ACT, and did NOT warrant any stop (as long as there was nothing else known or alleged). A simple MWAG call also does not warrant such a stop (any more than a call of a black male in a hoodie - the response should be "yeah, and what else is going on, anything????").

I do not believe TN statute purports to authorize LEO to stop an OC'er simply to verify carry license (I am verifying).

As some have stated, LEO would not normally be entitled to stop a motorist simply to verify that he is licensed to drive. Without the new statute, I would say there is no difference between the two. But, if the new statute says what is is supposed to say, LEO can probably rely on it until the statute is held unconstitutional by an Oklahoma court. They do have the right to presume that the statutes enacted by the legislature are constitutional, until some court says otherwise.

If this provision is in fact set out in Oklahoma Statutes, you have a significant hurdle ahead of you until that gets ironed out. Such a provision is very troublesome to me. I don't know of any other legal act where you can be stopped in the middle of your legal act, and forced under law to prove that you are acting legally, simply because someone "thinks" you might not be acting legally, without any reason to think so !!

Hopefully it can get reviewed and (likely) found unconstitutional without someone having to go to jail over it. If you have any attorneys in OK who specialize in 2A rights, maybe they can use someone's stop-and-ID stop by LEO to get the statute before the courts ASAP.

hermannr · Oct 25, 2012

ethorman said:
Ok so here are my thoughts regarding encountering OK LEOs while OCing. I will give a few situations and what I have come up with my own opinion on how to handle them and what if any issues may arise. I will always comply with the officer, however I may not consent but I will not resist either. That being said here we go:

Situation 1: OCing while shopping at a Store. (Store allows open carry)

While open carrying inside a store a police officer notices my weapon and starts to head over in my direction. Seeing this, I stop what I am doing and wait for him to arrive. Upon his arrival he introduces himself and I do the same and he asks if I have a permit for the weapon in which I state yes. He then asks if he can see that along with my OK drivers license and I agree to that as well. He then does a visual inspection of both my DL and my WP (Weapons Permit). He then proceeds to call me in and check and see if there are any warrants standing for my arrest of if I am a felon. Upon hearing that I am good to go he returns my DL and WP and I am free to go.

Observations: IMO this is a classic 4th Ammendment violation, even though the LEO did everything legally under state law, and have every authority to do so. Reason for the violation the police officer singled me out only because I was carrying and demanded DL and WP (which is legal via state law). I was detained, even thought it doesnt mean you have to be arrested or put in a car, he had my DL and WP so I was not free to go there for a detainment.

Say for arguments sake that I had a warrant out for my arrest, and upon running me he found out and I was arrested, disarmed and sent to jail, this is very similar to Delaware vs. Prouse, in which a LEO had pulled over a car to check the driver for his DL when he found marajuana in the vehicle and the driver was then arrested. The officer had no RAS to pull over the driver other than to just check his DL and because of that found the illegal substance.

Situation 2. Being called in on a MWAG 911 call

While walking my dog I see a officer in his vehicle approach me (lights on or off). I stop and wait for him to come to my location or for him to tell me to come to him. He then asks if I have a permit for my weapon, and I respond yes. He then asks to see my DL and WP in which I comply and give them to him. He looks at them, and decides to run me thru the system. I come back with no warrants or that I am a felon so he gives me back my WP and DL and I am free to leave.

Observations: IMO this is not a 4th Ammendment violation. The officer was responding to a call therefore he has not singled me out and has every legal right to identify me and make sure that I am legally carrying in accordance with SDA. I was detained again, because he had my DL and WP so I was not free to go.

Some can argue that there is RAS that a crime is, may or has been commited, the crime being carrying a weapon without a permit. Therefore the officers have RAS to stop and check eveyone for their WP and DL. Remember that the officer does not have to tell you if RAS exists or not, or why or how he was there so how do you know if he singled you out or if he is responding to a call, unless they tell you?

**Both of the above situations if you are disarmed for any reason that is a violation of state law, unless you of course have a warrant, commited another crime, or are a felon.**

Situation 3. Pulled over for speeding while OCing

Driving down the road speeding and get pulled over. Of course pull out my DL, WP, and Insurance and when the officer approaches and asks for them give them those as well as tell him that I have a weapon in the car. The officer then disarms me, takes my DL, WP, pistol (Officer safety right), and returns my insurance upon verifying that it has not expired and goes back to his car and runs me to ensure I have no warrants or am a felon. He then returns, gives me back my DL, WP, pistol and has me sign my ticket (press hard lol) and I am free to go.

Observations: IMO this is a violation of state law, the original crime that was commited was speeding there was no other crime that was commited after the one that let the officer pull you over. However one could argue that when the officer approches the vehicle and sees that you are not wearing your seatbelt that could be the "other crime" and therefore he could disarm you. Its a techaniclaity however it would be consided legal IMO. Say that your wearing your seatbelt and after pulling you over the LEO has RAS that you have been drinking, he then can disarm you due to the fact of a DUI/DWI.

This is all my own opinon and I hope that I am understanding our laws and statue correct. Feel free to comment and let me know what your opinions are, remember this is OK, I really do not care about other states laws and how they would relate if I was there. Also remember IANAL. Thanks.

PS: Not a english major, and there may be mispellings...

Situation #1: Ignore the LEO and continue what you are doing. Act as if the pistol you have is really (even though it is not) a cell phone on your hip. It makes no difference, cell phone or pistol, both are legal. If the LEO addresses you, say, I am busy, am I being detained? If the LEO says yes, then ask what CRIMINAL activity he suspects you of. If he says no, he is not detaining you, say, have a good day. If he absolutely demands to see your CPL...show it do him, and then file a FORMAL complaint with his department.

Situation two: see how to handle situation #1. No different.

Situation #3. OK, specifically forbids the officer from disarming you if you have a CPL (or weapons permit as you wish to call it)...Remember that. If the officer does disarm you, file a formal complaint with his department and remind them that disarming a person with a permit, without a reasonaable suspicion of CRIMINAL activity (Traffic violations are NOT crimes) is illegal per the SDA.

hermannr · Oct 25, 2012

mlr said:
I have discussed this particular scenario with a few friends in law enforcement. a few of them believe that the fact there was a call creates RAS. My response top this is that unless the caller informed the police that they had reason to believe a crime was being committed where is the RAS?
Examples:
1)Caller reports a person with a gun and the caller knows or has been told the person does not have a permit or is a felon.

2)Caller reports a person with a gun who appears to be underage.

3)Caller reports a person acting suspiciously and just happens to be armed. Lets say the person is sneaking around like he is casing a home or business.

4) Caller reports a person who is walking down the street carrying a firearm in a community where the law does not prohibit him from doing so.

Would I be wrong to assume that in cases 1,2 &3 there is RAS. While in case 4 there is not? In the first three examples the caller is reporting a crime while in the fourth he is not.

Michael

#1: Depends, it may be enough, it may not...BTW: Not likely to happen...felons hide their weapons, have forever.
#2: Probaly not. My estimation of a 21 year old is not valid any more...once you hit 65 anyone under 35 looks younger than 21 (especially females, or should I say, members of the opposite...) Average citizen cannot be relied on to estemate age.
#3: Again...as stated in the 1902 Idaho Supreme Court Decision "In re Brickley"..."those up to no-good conceal their weapons". If someone called something like that in I would be extremely suspicious of the caller's motives.
#4: Absolutely no RAS, and the dispatcher should educate the caller..if the dispatcher does not, the officer should drive by, verify the person is doing nothing but peacefully walking down the street...not stop and contact the carrier, but the officer should contact the caller and explain that the person carrying is doing nothing illegal, but that bogas calls to the 911 center are illegal.

Citizen · Oct 26, 2012

mlr said:
I have discussed this particular scenario with a few friends in law enforcement. a few of them believe that the fact there was a call creates RAS. My response top this is that unless the caller informed the police that they had reason to believe a crime was being committed where is the RAS?
Examples:
1)Caller reports a person with a gun and the caller knows or has been told the person does not have a permit or is a felon.

2)Caller reports a person with a gun who appears to be underage.

3)Caller reports a person acting suspiciously and just happens to be armed. Lets say the person is sneaking around like he is casing a home or business.

4) Caller reports a person who is walking down the street carrying a firearm in a community where the law does not prohibit him from doing so.

Would I be wrong to assume that in cases 1,2 &3 there is RAS. While in case 4 there is not? In the first three examples the caller is reporting a crime while in the fourth he is not.

Michael

I am not a lawyer.

See a case called Florida vs JL at the first link below. The person was a minor, thus only his initials in the name of the case. The case is important to OCers for two reasons. First, the case itself was about a caller and the reliability of phone calls as to whether or not certain information provided or not provided by a caller adds up to reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS). Second, in the discussion section of the opinion, the US Supreme Court expressly declined to make an exception to Terry Stop doctrine just for guns (the arrest involved a handgun in the minor's possession.). A Terry Stop is police encounter where police temporarily seize a person for investigation. It is sometimes called stop, detention, and detainment. The term Terry Stop comes from a case called Terry vs Ohio. It can be found at the first link below.

So, basically, you're giving insufficient information about the content of the phone calls. According to Florida vs JL and other cases cited within it, there needs to be indicia (indicators) of reliability regarding the caller before we can decide whether RAS exists. In other words, when it comes to phone calls/tips, RAS is almost, perhaps entirely, inseparable from indicia of reliability.

However, lets say all four phone calls included sufficient indicia of reliability. Then, I would tend to agree that phone calls 1-3 give RAS. And, that phone call #4 does not.

But, anybody reading this must understand thorougly that you're probably not going to be able to figure this out during the police encounter itself. Meaning, you're not going to be able to conclude reliably that the cop has no RAS and be able to safely act on that conclusion. This is all stuff the court figures out after the encounter. See the first post at the second link below for more explanation. No, really. Go to the second link below and read the first post. You need to know this when formulating tactics for a police encounter.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?55914-Get-Your-4th-and-5th-Amendment-Resources-Here!!

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...u-Correctly-Determine-Whether-the-Cop-has-RAS

Citizen · Oct 26, 2012

hermannr said:
SNIP Situation #3. OK, specifically forbids the officer from disarming you if you have a CPL (or weapons permit as you wish to call it)...Remember that. If the officer does disarm you, file a formal complaint with his department and remind them that disarming a person with a permit, without a reasonaable suspicion of CRIMINAL activity (Traffic violations are NOT crimes) is illegal per the SDA.

Cite, please. Forum Rule #5. Which OK statute or court opinion?

Nevermind. I found it. 21-1290.8

Its a little tricky to navigate the OK legislature's website. And, for some reason I cannot copy-and-paste the text of the statute from there to here. But, you can try the link below, and click on the first search return.

http://www.oklegislature.gov/tsrs_os_oc.aspx?Text=openly+carry+handgun

Citizen · Oct 26, 2012

ethorman said:
SNIP Situation 1: OCing while shopping at a Store. (Store allows open carry)

While open carrying inside a store a police officer notices my weapon and starts to head over in my direction. Seeing this, I stop what I am doing and wait for him to arrive. Upon his arrival he introduces himself and I do the same and he asks if I have a permit for the weapon in which I state yes. He then asks if he can see that along with my OK drivers license and I agree to that as well. He then does a visual inspection of both my DL and my WP (Weapons Permit). He then proceeds to call me in and check and see if there are any warrants standing for my arrest of if I am a felon. Upon hearing that I am good to go he returns my DL and WP and I am free to go.

Observations: IMO this is a classic 4th Ammendment violation, even though the LEO did everything legally under state law, and have every authority to do so. Reason for the violation the police officer singled me out only because I was carrying and demanded DL and WP (which is legal via state law). I was detained, even thought it doesnt mean you have to be arrested or put in a car, he had my DL and WP so I was not free to go there for a detainment.

Say for arguments sake that I had a warrant out for my arrest, and upon running me he found out and I was arrested, disarmed and sent to jail, this is very similar to Delaware vs. Prouse, in which a LEO had pulled over a car to check the driver for his DL when he found marajuana in the vehicle and the driver was then arrested. The officer had no RAS to pull over the driver other than to just check his DL and because of that found the illegal substance.

Its also similar to hunting and fishing where the game warden can demand to see your license just because you seem to be hunting or fishing. I wouldn't devote much energy to this line of argument. Knowing the government, the courts are most likely to side with the legislature, saying they have the authority to make this kind of law. Drivers license statutes don't authorize cops to stop everybody just to check the license. Fishing license, hunting license, and this gun license statute do. Just file it away for the list of government refusals to recognize rights. And, add to the list of things that need to be changed in the next session of the legislature.

Citizen · Oct 26, 2012

ethorman said:
SNIP Situation 2. Being called in on a MWAG 911 call

While walking my dog I see a officer in his vehicle approach me (lights on or off). I stop and wait for him to come to my location or for him to tell me to come to him. He then asks if I have a permit for my weapon, and I respond yes. He then asks to see my DL and WP in which I comply and give them to him. He looks at them, and decides to run me thru the system. I come back with no warrants or that I am a felon so he gives me back my WP and DL and I am free to leave.

Observations: IMO this is not a 4th Ammendment violation. The officer was responding to a call therefore he has not singled me out and has every legal right to identify me and make sure that I am legally carrying in accordance with SDA. I was detained again, because he had my DL and WP so I was not free to go.

Some can argue that there is RAS that a crime is, may or has been commited, the crime being carrying a weapon without a permit. Therefore the officers have RAS to stop and check eveyone for their WP and DL. Remember that the officer does not have to tell you if RAS exists or not, or why or how he was there so how do you know if he singled you out or if he is responding to a call, unless they tell you?

**Both of the above situations if you are disarmed for any reason that is a violation of state law, unless you of course have a warrant, commited another crime, or are a felon.

I hope nobody argues that merely performing a licensed activity creates RAS of being unlicensed and justifies police initiating an investigative detention. This is not something I would concede to government. Keep RAS separate from licensed activities, at least as far as justifying the initiation of an investigative detention. If, midway through a detention for something else, the person being checked out by the police gives the cops some reason to suspect he is not licensed, then I might be willing to consider it. But not justification to initiate a detention. The legislature effectively did the same thing by statute; I wouldn't validate it by arguing for it from an RAS standpoint.

Also, one might think carefully about the whole concept of Terry Stops and RAS and so forth before agreeing with government that such sounds reasonable. You see, there is something very, very interesting about Terry v Ohio. Once upon a time in this country, it was the law of the land that no right was more sacred or more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of all individuals to be free from all restraint and interference unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. That was almost a verbatim quote. Its from Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford. SCOTUS quoted that early in the text of Terry.

Here is where it gets interesting. Police had been Terry Stopping people for years and years. But, it was Terry itself that gave them the authority to do so. Do you see the contradiction? Police had been violating the right against interference and restraint for years because they did not have clear and unquestionable authority to do so. Then along comes Terry to give them that authority. Oh, its reasonable, said the court. Oh? But, if police had clear and unquestionable authority prior to Terry, why did the court have to render a decision on the matter? Because police did not have clear and unquestionable authority to detain people prior to Terry and the court had to decide.

There is also the matter of the dissent in Terry. The dissent points out that even magistrates did not have the power to seize people on mere RAS. Magistrates need probable cause to issue a warrant. The dissent argued against handing police more power than magistrates. This just gives another sure sign that police did not have clear and unquestionable authority of law to detain people prior to Terry. Ooops. Let that cat out of the bag, didn't they?

The final nail in the coffin is that this country didn't even have police at the time the 4th Amendment was written. Police didn't come along until about 1840-50. So much for the 4A including police detentions.

Citizen · Oct 26, 2012

ethorman said:
SNIP Situation 3. Pulled over for speeding while OCing

Driving down the road speeding and get pulled over. Of course pull out my DL, WP, and Insurance and when the officer approaches and asks for them give them those as well as tell him that I have a weapon in the car. The officer then disarms me, takes my DL, WP, pistol (Officer safety right), and returns my insurance upon verifying that it has not expired and goes back to his car and runs me to ensure I have no warrants or am a felon. He then returns, gives me back my DL, WP, pistol and has me sign my ticket (press hard lol) and I am free to go.

Observations: IMO this is a violation of state law, the original crime that was commited was speeding there was no other crime that was commited after the one that let the officer pull you over. However one could argue that when the officer approches the vehicle and sees that you are not wearing your seatbelt that could be the "other crime" and therefore he could disarm you. Its a techaniclaity however it would be consided legal IMO. Say that your wearing your seatbelt and after pulling you over the LEO has RAS that you have been drinking, he then can disarm you due to the fact of a DUI/DWI.

This is all my own opinon and I hope that I am understanding our laws and statue correct. Feel free to comment and let me know what your opinions are, remember this is OK, I really do not care about other states laws and how they would relate if I was there. Also remember IANAL. Thanks.

PS: Not a english major, and there may be mispellings...

There is another angle to this. There was a recent SCOTUS case, Virginia vs Moore, where Moore was arrested for some misdemeanor offense. The problem was that VA law requires a cop to issue a summons for a misdemeanor instead of arresting the misdemeanant. If I recall, it was appealed to SCOTUS because the search after the arrest (everybody gets thoroughly searched after being arrested) turned up something else illegal. Moore was appealing his conviction for that item discovered during the search, saying it was a violation of his 4A rights to be arrested when state law required a summons, which wouldn't have resulted in a search. SCOTUS ruled that the 4A allows an arrest for any offense, and that the arrest, although it violated state law, did not violate the 4A.

I have a feeling something like that is what would apply here. Although the disarming would violate state law if a licensee, it would not violate a number of rulings on cops seizing guns for officer safety. Especially during a traffic stop for another offense. See the court's heavy deference to police safety during traffic stops in a case called PA vs Mimms.

So, if a licensee is disarmed during a traffic stop in violation of the OK statute, and the state courts side with the cops when the licensee sues, an appeal to the federal courts will, I think, go nowhere. Heck, state courts might overturn that provision of the state statute. Of course, some cops will recognize quickly that the licensee has no real way to enforce his side of this statute. What's he gonna do? Sue in state court at heavy expense?

There is one little ray of sunshine in this. See my next post.

Citizen · Oct 26, 2012

Heh, heh, heh.

There is a ray of sunshine regarding a licensee being disarmed during a traffic stop. My point in the previous post is that a licensee is gonna have a lot of headache and possibly legal expenses suing in state court to enforce his rights against being automatically disarmed.

OK statute 21-1290.8.B says in relevant part: "...a person carrying a...hangun shall not be disarmed or physically restrained...Any violation of the provisions of this subsection may be punished as a criminal offense..."

Hmmm. Any violation may be punished as a criminal offense. Well, now. A cop who disarms a licensee would certainly be violating a provision of that subsection, now wouldn't he? The statute clearly says any violation, doesn't it.

Heh, heh, heh.

You guys get the idea, right?

I'd be checking into that. Deeply. Ahead of time.

carolina guy · Oct 26, 2012

Citizen said:
<snip>

The final nail in the coffin is that this country didn't even have police at the time the 4th Amendment was written. Police didn't come along until about 1840-50. So much for the 4A including police detentions.

+1 Ding Ding Ding!!

Encounters with LEOs

ethorman

Regular Member

mlr

Regular Member

MM_45

Regular Member

ethorman

Regular Member

docachna

Newbie

hermannr

Regular Member

hermannr

Regular Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

carolina guy

Regular Member