Folks are free to form their beliefs on the basis of feelings and analogies, but when it comes to beliefs regarding the law, I prefer to base mine on precedent.
Federal:
“Based on McRae's admission that he was carrying a handgun in his waistband, the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that McRae was committing a crime under Florida law— carrying a concealed weapon. *** Under Florida law, " [a] person who carries a concealed firearm on or about his person commits a felony of the third degree." *** Notably, the possession of a valid permit for a concealed weapon is not related to the elements of the crime, but rather is an affirmative defense.
“Moreover, because reasonable suspicion analysis is not concerned with "hard certainties, but with probabilities," *** McRae's admission to carrying a concealed weapon was sufficient to justify briefly stopping him before inquiring further about whether he had an affirmative defense in the form of a valid concealed-weapons permit.” (Citations and footnotes omitted.)
United States v. Lewis, 674 F.3d 1298, 1304 (11th Cir. 2012).
Now that's nothing new; I discussed this more than a year ago in
the Ohio subforum. However, more recently, and with specific application to my state ...
Ohio:
" A person accused of violating a penal statute which contains an exemption has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is within such exemption. *** [W]e hold it was Meyers' burden to establish that he had his license with him at the time he was stopped."
State v. Meyers, 2014-Ohio-1357, at ¶41, 43 (11th Dist.).
I stand by my earlier assertion.