Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: OR 166.380 Examination of firearm by peace officer; arrest for failure to allow examination.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    Hello. I am new here but, I have been lurking for awhile.
    I am curious about this law. It(166.380) seems to not have any exemptions that I am aware of. If I allow an officer to examine a firearm that he/she is not familiar there could be safety issues. I believe I read something in this forum regarding the liability but there didn't seem to be any references to this law. Please, help me figure out whether or not I must comply. I do have my CCL if that is applicable in any way.
    Thanks.


    166.380 Examination of firearm by peace officer; arrest for failure to allow examination. (1) A peace officer may examine a firearm possessed by anyone on the person while in or on a public building to determine whether the firearm is a loaded firearm.
    (2) Refusal by a person to allow the examination authorized by subsection (1) of this section constitutes reason to believe that the person has committed a crime and the peace officer may make an arrest pursuant to ORS 133.310.

  2. #2
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    Stihl Rig wrote:
    Hello. I am new here but, I have been lurking for awhile.
    I am curious about this law. It(166.380) seems to not have any exemptions that I am aware of. If I allow an officer to examine a firearm that he/she is not familiar there could be safety issues. I believe I read something in this forum regarding the liability but there didn't seem to be any references to this law. Please, help me figure out whether or not I must comply. I do have my CCL if that is applicable in any way.
    Thanks.


    166.380 Examination of firearm by peace officer; arrest for failure to allow examination. (1) A peace officer may examine a firearm possessed by anyone on the person while in or on a public building to determine whether the firearm is a loaded firearm.
    (2) Refusal by a person to allow the examination authorized by subsection (1) of this section constitutes reason to believe that the person has committed a crime and the peace officer may make an arrest pursuant to ORS 133.310
    .
    California has a similar law on the books in PC 12031 (e) which reads;



    In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.
    Unlike the Oregon statute, the California law is anywhere inside city limits or in places where discharge is prohibited.

    Neither statute in my opinion, is Constitutional as it circumvents our 4th amendment rights protecting the people from warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures. It artificially creates 'probable cause' where none would exist for a lawfully armed citizen. I suppose it also could be argued that this is a 14th amendment rights violation as well, created by the legistlature who penned it, as it abrogates civil rights under the color of law...

    More to the point though- refusing to consent to this search will probably lead to the officerto initiating an arrest. In the officers eyes, he will be justified in using lethal force to ensure compliance... meaning they will likely draw their weapon and treat you like a felon. So whether you are concern about your safety while a stranger handles your firearm, or the police are pointing their weapons at you while making an arrest- the danger is almost the same.

    At some point, probably after Heller v. DC has been favorably ruled on, this will be challenged. Unless you are prepared to have police point their weapon at you, be arrested, and have an attorney defend your rights in court, it is probably wise to allow the officers inspect your firearm.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    Stihl Rig wrote:
    Hello. I am new here but, I have been lurking for awhile.
    I am curious about this law. It(166.380) seems to not have any exemptions that I am aware of. If I allow an officer to examine a firearm that he/she is not familiar there could be safety issues. I believe I read something in this forum regarding the liability but there didn't seem to be any references to this law. Please, help me figure out whether or not I must comply. I do have my CCL if that is applicable in any way.
    Thanks.


    166.380 Examination of firearm by peace officer; arrest for failure to allow examination. (1) A peace officer may examine a firearm possessed by anyone on the person while in or on a public building to determine whether the firearm is a loaded firearm.
    (2) Refusal by a person to allow the examination authorized by subsection (1) of this section constitutes reason to believe that the person has committed a crime and the peace officer may make an arrest pursuant to ORS 133.310
    .
    California has a similar law on the books in PC 12031 (e) which reads;



    In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.
    Unlike the Oregon statute, the California law is anywhere inside city limits or in places where discharge is prohibited.

    Neither statute in my opinion, is Constitutional as it circumvents our 4th amendment rights protecting the people from warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures. It artificially creates 'probable cause' where none would exist for a lawfully armed citizen. I suppose it also could be argued that this is a 14th amendment rights violation as well, created by the legistlature who penned it, as it abrogates civil rights under the color of law...

    More to the point though- refusing to consent to this search will probably lead to the officerto initiating an arrest. In the officers eyes, he will be justified in using lethal force to ensure compliance... meaning they will likely draw their weapon and treat you like a felon. So whether you are concern about your safety while a stranger handles your firearm, or the police are pointing their weapons at you while making an arrest- the danger is almost the same.

    At some point, probably after Heller v. DC has been favorably ruled on, this will be challenged. Unless you are prepared to have police point their weapon at you, be arrested, and have an attorney defend your rights in court, it is probably wise to allow the officers inspect your firearm.
    In my experience, very few officers are aware of obscure laws like this and like ORS 821.240 which makes it illegal to carry your loadedhandgun on an ATV or snowmobile, CPL or not. I have carried regularly on my ATV in Oregon and encountered better than a dozen officers while do so and none knew of this law (neither did I at the time) but I have never be hassled about the gun on the ATV in Oregon. At home, Washington, we don't have this kind of stupid and discriminatory laws.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the replies, I am asking because I am trying to put a list of the laws together to carry in my wallet in case of problems with LEO's. I have a great little list going but this one statute is causing me some trouble in understanding the restrictions.
    I got my CCL mostly so I don't have to leave my weapons in my car when I am in the restricted areas that are exempt with an Oregon CCL. No one wants to return to their vehicle and face a car or stereo thief that is armed with my own weapons.

    Thanks again, I definately appreciate the help of the inmates here.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    At some point, probably after Heller v. DC has been favorably ruled on, this will be challenged.
    With respect, this 'probably' is true only post hoc ergo propter hoc, there is no causal relation due to the narrowing of the question that the Court will address.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member OC-Glock19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    561

    Post imported post

    Stihl Rig wrote:
    No one wants to return to their vehicle and face a car or stereo thief that is armed with my own weapons.
    If this is slightly off topic I apologize, but you raised the above point that I wanted to address.

    If for any reason I have to leave my gun in my car, I first unload it and then disassemble it, putting a necessary piece of it (such as the barrel) in my pocket to take with me. Then if thieves find my gun they cannot use it on me if I return unexpectedly and surprise them.

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Stihl Rig wrote:
    Hello.¬* I am new here but, I have been lurking for awhile.
    I am curious about this law.¬* It(166.380) seems to not have any exemptions that I am aware of.¬*¬* If I allow an officer to examine a firearm that he/she is not familiar there could be safety issues.¬* I believe I read something¬* in this forum regarding the liability but there didn't seem to be any references to this law.¬* Please, help me figure out whether or not I must comply.¬*¬* I do have my CCL if that is applicable in any way.
    Thanks.
    ¬*

    166.380 Examination of firearm by peace officer; arrest for failure to allow examination. (1) A peace officer may examine a firearm possessed by anyone on the person while in or on a public building to determine whether the firearm is a loaded firearm. ¬*¬*¬*¬*¬*
    (2) Refusal by a person to allow the examination authorized by subsection (1) of this section constitutes reason to believe that the person has committed a crime and the peace officer may make an arrest pursuant to ORS 133.310.
    OK, I'll bite - is it a crime to carry a loaded handgun in a public building? I did not think so - so why inspect?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    OC-Glock19 wrote:
    Stihl Rig wrote:
    No one wants to return to their vehicle and face a car or stereo thief that is armed with my own weapons.
    If this is slightly off topic I apologize, but you raised the above point that I wanted to address.

    If for any reason I have to leave my gun in my car, I first unload it and then disassemble it, putting a necessary piece of it (such as the barrel) in my pocket to take with me. Then if thieves find my gun they cannot use it on me if I return unexpectedly and surprise them.
    Good advice for anyone that needs to leave a firearm in their car. This is not necessary for me since I have my CCL.

    From Mike:" OK, I'll bite - is it a crime to carry a loaded handgun in a public building? I did not think so - so why inspect?"

    I agree, but the statute I quoted is what it is. Therefore I am looking for input.
    I'm not sure if this applies;
    166.370 Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in public building or court facility; exceptions; discharging firearm at school. (1) Any person who intentionally possesses a loaded or unloaded firearm or any other instrument used as a dangerous weapon, while in or on a public building, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class C felony.
    (2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person who intentionally possesses:
    (A) A firearm in a court facility is guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C felony. A person who intentionally possesses a firearm in a court facility shall surrender the firearm to a law enforcement officer.
    (B) A weapon, other than a firearm, in a court facility may be required to surrender the weapon to a law enforcement officer or to immediately remove it from the court facility. A person who fails to comply with this subparagraph is guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C felony
    (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
    (d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.
    (4) The exceptions listed in subsection (3)(b) to (f) of this section constitute affirmative defenses to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section.


    Thanks for the input
    Stihl
    Parts of this bulletin board may not function unless you enable JavaScript (also called Active Scripting) in your browser.


  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    OK, I guess this 'splains it:

    (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
    (d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    Mike, I was thinking the same thing except statute 166.380 follows 166.370, so I'm not sure if it covers the examination issue.

    I don't really have a problem with submitting to an examination of my firearm, it's just that I want to be clear as to whether or not the LEO's actually have the right to examine it to see if it's loaded. I mean what's the point. Of course it's loaded. I was thinking this discussion would help clear up something that could be a problem if the inmates here don't know about this statute. I only recently read this statute so I thought I throw it up for discussion.

    thanks



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    Stihl Rig wrote:
    I don't really have a problem with submitting to an examination of my firearm, it's just that I want to be clear as to whether or not the LEO's actually have the right to examine it to see if it's loaded. I mean what's the point. Of course it's loaded.
    I have to agree with this part. I can see a LEO asking if your weapon is loaded, and asking if you have a permit. If you were to reply yes to both, I doubt there would be a huge need on their part to inspect your weapon.

    On the other hand, if you replied that the weapon was unloaded (licensed to carry or not) I can then see them wanting to check. Since Oregon cities have the ability to restrict carry in public buildings (specifically loaded vs unloaded) I can see their need to check. Especially if you do not have a carry license.

    "166.173 Authority of city or county to regulate possession of loaded firearms in public places. (1) A city or county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession of loaded firearms in public places as defined in ORS 161.015."

    If you are not licensed you may be in violation of the above law and the only way an officer could clear you of the charge - or charge you of the violation would be to inspect.

    I would think that having the CCL would make this a moot point, but obviously there is room for a loophole there.

    NOTE: I am new here and just trying to put together what I have picked up so far. Please feel free to correct anything I may have said.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    pdxwarrior wrote:
    Stihl Rig wrote:
    I don't really have a problem with submitting to an examination of my firearm, it's just that I want to be clear as to whether or not the LEO's actually have the right to examine it to see if it's loaded. I mean what's the point. Of course it's loaded.
    I have to agree with this part. I can see a LEO asking if your weapon is loaded, and asking if you have a permit. If you were to reply yes to both, I doubt there would be a huge need on their part to inspect your weapon.

    If you are not licensed you may be in violation of the above law and the only way an officer could clear you of the charge - or charge you of the violation would be to inspect.

    I would think that having the CCL would make this a moot point, but obviously there is room for a loophole there.
    Good points,
    The "loophole" is what I was trying to figure out. It would seem that having the CCL is really the key here. Someone who is carrying in this type of situation better be prepared with a big smile and CCL at hand.

    I don't often find myself in a county or city building so I'll probably not have any problems but, I figure I should "be prepared"(I was a Boy Scout) for any situation I might encounter.

    I started my "statute" reading because I went to one of the local schools with my co-worker/friend to pickup his son, and there were "Gun-Free Zone" signs everywhere, and I was carrying. I stayed in the car while my friend went in to find his son, so no MWG calls were made. It made me wonder whether or not I was legal or not. When I went to school here we used to keep "varmit" rifles in our trucks parked in the school lot. So here we are, times have changed.

    Thanks for the great input-- It's great to have a place to ask questions without getting the runaround. The local LEO's don't really no what the law says about things like this.


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    There's definitely nothing wrong with being prepared. I need to start putting together a portable list of laws to lug around with me as well. In some ways it seems wrong to have to whip out a list and read off the laws to local LEOs. I could see where that could cause some frustration - sort of the "oh this guys a wise guy eh, wonder what else I can pick him up for" attitude. Don't get me wrong, not trying to say that they are the "bad guys" by any means.

    I have yet to complete a CHL course and apply for the permit before I can start carrying. Since I'm in Oregon I don't want to start carrying due to local restrictions that vary from city to city. In the mean time I am just trying to gain as much knowledge as possible.

    As for school zones, there's definitely room for confusion there. I think in most cases when the time comes and I find myself in a school situation I'll probably just conceal. Should be less alarming to students and staff. Why start a situation when you don't need to? I believe Portland Schools have already stated they will continue to confront those that carry on school grounds and possibly take the issue to court. If they don't know, it's less likely you'll have to deal with the issue at all.

    As for times changing - they definitely have. Was just talking to a neighbor of mine the other day and he mentioned that when he was in school (in the NW) they were able to take their rifles to school for a shooting class they had.

    -pdxwarrior

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    166.380 Examination of firearm by peace officer; arrest for failure to allow examination. (1) A peace officer may examine a firearm possessed by anyone on the person while in or on a public building to determine whether the firearm is a loaded firearm.
    (2) Refusal by a person to allow the examination authorized by subsection (1) of this section constitutes reason to believe that the person has committed a crime and the peace officer may make an arrest pursuant to ORS 133.310.
    If anyone were "on a public building" with a loaded firearm, I could understand an examination.....might be a sniper:what:

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Airway Heights, Washington, USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    While in the Beaverton City Council meeting open carrying I was aked to see my CPL and that was all. As CPL holders are "exempt" from the law requiring submission to an office for inspection they have no legal position that allows them to reqest to see my weapon to see if it is loaded.





  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Gray2Hairs wrote:
    While in the Beaverton City Council meeting open carrying I was aked to see my CPL and that was all. As CPL holders are "exempt" from the law requiring submission to an office for inspection they have no legal position that allows them to reqest to see my weapon to see if it is loaded.
    Good work.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Portland, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    6of my friends are Law Enforcement officers, and I frequently carry when I am hanging out with them in publicwhen they are off duty. Pretty much whatI havebeentold is if you have a CHL, then they know you're not a felon and are a stand up person for even being granted one, so they won't bother you. That is why every time I am pulled over, I hand the officer my CHL along with my license, so that way, they know I am carrying, and when they run my license they don't get all jittery when it comes up showing that I have a CHL. All that I have ever been asked in that scenario is to keep my hands in sight and not move them, and I have been asked if I had my weapon on me or if it was in a different location in my car. Police officers generally don't harass people unless given a reason to, so if you comply and give them a break, then generally they will show you the same courtesy. And what kind of firearm would someone be carrying that a police officer would generally not have encountered in their carrersprior to this situation?With the background check a CHL holder and a police officer both go through, if they wanna see my gun, I'll show it to them, I have nothing to hide, even if I don't like it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Airway Heights, Washington, USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    There are some cops who do not know the law, believe that they are the only ones that should have a gun and are beligerant when confronting civilians with guns. That is a big part of the OC movement, educating officers.

    In some cites, the officers are given incorrect info and do strongly work to intimidate anyone OCing. They do flat out lie and are commiting crimes when they do deliberately intinidate people.

    Those offercers that are good need to step up to the plate and help educate their fellow officers.

    None of us want to become a test case for officer misconduct.

    During my initial contact with Beaverton police while OCing it was clear that they did NOT know the law and we spent quite a bit of time going over the laws while 6 of the officers on duty stood around me. They behaved properly and finally understood the situation. Had those officers not been open to discussion it cold easily have turned into a bad situation. As it was, they "strongly" suggested that I not OC during the city council meeting. Although they admitted that it was legal, they were quite adamant that I should not be OCing.

    They did not "intimidate" me beyond legal limits but they certainly did try. I would always be polite but it is a sad situation when a legal behavior is not understood by so many law enforcment officers.





  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    Good input Gray2Hairs and Recondo. Gray2Hairs, thats some good work being on the spot with 6 officers surrounding you. I thank you for your efforts at educating others about OC.

    On a side note I OC'd at Barnes & Noble the other nite, I had no problems. It was snowing out so I was dressed in a heavy jacket. I took it off and carried it in my weak hand while I browsed. No one said anything, I don't think anyone really noticed.



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Stihl Rig wrote: [/b]
    When I went to school here we used to keep "varmit" rifles in our trucks parked in the school lot.¬* So here we are, times have changed.
    Hey Stihl,

    This part of your quote is concerning. Too many out of state folks moving into our area that are not gun folks.

    I know which school you are referring too and yeah, I don't really remember not having a firearm in the rig all the time whenever I was anywhere. Everyone always had a gun because, you just had a gun. I've had to shoot everything from rattlesnakes to overly aggressive raccoons.

    Just the other day, a few miles from my house, guy came home to a mountain lion in his backyard. What the hell do you do with that without a gun? "Bad mountain lion, go away or I will throw this rock at you."

    I think we need to step up our OC activities to make sure folks stay used to seeing guns around town. I just don't have a lot of business in the populated shopping areas or downtown so I have to go down there with the specific purpose of OC.

    edit for goofed quote tags.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Scappoose, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    This sounds like we need to do a get-together like Washington does oncea month.

    Ken

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    Hey No NAU, A cougar in the yard is no big deal, I came home the other day and their were 3 Jehova's witnesses on my front porch. Talk about scary, I'd rather face the cougar with a rock.
    Next time you need to be in town let me know and we can hook up and get some food or something.

    cheers

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Puddin99 wrote:
    This sounds like we need to do a get-together like Washington does once¬*a month.

    Ken
    Are you in Central Oregon?

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Scappoose, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    No NAU wrote:
    Puddin99 wrote:
    This sounds like we need to do a get-together like Washington does oncea month.

    Ken
    Are you in Central Oregon?
    Unfortunatley, I'm in a suburb of Portland.

    Ken

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    Stihl Rig wrote:
    Hello. I am new here but, I have been lurking for awhile.
    I am curious about this law. It(166.380) seems to not have any exemptions that I am aware of. If I allow an officer to examine a firearm that he/she is not familiar there could be safety issues. I believe I read something in this forum regarding the liability but there didn't seem to be any references to this law. Please, help me figure out whether or not I must comply. I do have my CCL if that is applicable in any way.
    Thanks.


    166.380 Examination of firearm by peace officer; arrest for failure to allow examination. (1) A peace officer may examine a firearm possessed by anyone on the person while in or on a public building to determine whether the firearm is a loaded firearm.
    (2) Refusal by a person to allow the examination authorized by subsection (1) of this section constitutes reason to believe that the person has committed a crime and the peace officer may make an arrest pursuant to ORS 133.310.
    New to the forum, so this is my first post. I read most of the responses here, lots of very good information. However, I failed to see much in relation to one key area of the original question/post: safety. One of Stihl_Rig concern was with safety. In my opinion, this should not be a concern. The reason:

    EVERY time ANY ONE ask to see my weapon (for the forum sake: a pistol) I make absolutely sure to: 1-Take the magazine out, 2-Cock the slider and show NO live round in the chamber, 3- Leave slider cocked (depending on model) to continuously show empty chamber, and 4- Keep magazine with me a all times.

    Therefore, in my humble opinion, regardless if is federal, state, county, local or whatever law or statute,or no statue at all for that matter, and especially if I am being asked by any form of legitimate law enforcement, I will surrender my piece for inspection; with no concern for safety whatsoever. What can happen? He hits me with it? If I survive the beating, I will probably have no need to work anymoreafter cashing the settlement check. Too far-fetched to ever happen however.

    Therefore, why does it matter if, legitimate or not, law enforcement want to see my piece or not? If the officer acted out of line, due-diligence and research to see if a complaint is in order; and if not, so be it.

    I am open for suggestions and/or comments.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •