Yesterday when reviewing 436 I noticed something interesting about the LEO restrictions in the CCW-OC amendment:
This is in the context of:
I'm wondering whether this may have a neat side effect. When driving (at least in an area with OC prohibiting ordinances), could this discourage LEOs from temporarily disarming people during traffic stops?
Since many traffic violations are not considered crimes, merely infractions, you can see the possibilities!
And if a cop did not articulate the reason for a stop but did a disarm...bingo.
If this was tested in court I'm afraid the state would wriggle around it, but still, I really like anything that discourages bad habits, and a limited or temporary effect on bad habits, or even causing people to consider them rather than taking them for granted, is better than nothing.
Do you think this effect is possible?
HA2:3(2)(d) In the absence of any reasonable and articular suspicion of criminal activity, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed handgun shall be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest;
This is in the context of:
HA2:3(2) In any jurisdiction in which open carry of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, open carry of a firearm shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following:
I'm wondering whether this may have a neat side effect. When driving (at least in an area with OC prohibiting ordinances), could this discourage LEOs from temporarily disarming people during traffic stops?
Since many traffic violations are not considered crimes, merely infractions, you can see the possibilities!
And if a cop did not articulate the reason for a stop but did a disarm...bingo.
If this was tested in court I'm afraid the state would wriggle around it, but still, I really like anything that discourages bad habits, and a limited or temporary effect on bad habits, or even causing people to consider them rather than taking them for granted, is better than nothing.
Do you think this effect is possible?