OldShooter
New member
imported post
It seems to me that LEOs who violate your rights regarding gun laws, for example, by making unwarranted felony stops when they see you carrying, confiscating your weapon, charging you (with all the consequent expense and hassle to clear yourself), etc., are performing their duties in an incompetent manner, and this should be grounds for a suit, or at least a complaint,against the city, state, or department. At the very least it should result in notes in the officer'srecord, reprimands, or possibly just annoying "retraining" time. I don't know of anyone who has done this, but it seems like it should be feasible, and a rash of such complaints/suitsmight tend to make senior LEOs keep their less informed, or overly authoritarian, brethren under better control. My reasoning is as follows: Since LEOs have to consider the question of the potential presence of weapons at virtually EVERY stop they make, they can reasonably be expected to have to be especially familiar with the local laws governing weapons (lest they encounter one). After all, the gun laws are generally pretty straightforward, less complex than drug laws or traffic laws, and have a more direct bearing on the officer's safety. Since it is something the LEO has to deal with so often, probably more than any other single factor, it would be reasonable to ensure that officers are especially well trained in the relevant laws. I bet they all know about the "21 foot rule," eventhe ones whohaven't heard about the legality of OC in their state- that doesn't seem right to me. I'm supposing that getting nasty notes in your record, or facing the possibility of more "retraining" or other hassles, would at least get the officer on the scene to check with his watch commander or supervisor before doing something like what happened in Penn just recently.
It seems to me that LEOs who violate your rights regarding gun laws, for example, by making unwarranted felony stops when they see you carrying, confiscating your weapon, charging you (with all the consequent expense and hassle to clear yourself), etc., are performing their duties in an incompetent manner, and this should be grounds for a suit, or at least a complaint,against the city, state, or department. At the very least it should result in notes in the officer'srecord, reprimands, or possibly just annoying "retraining" time. I don't know of anyone who has done this, but it seems like it should be feasible, and a rash of such complaints/suitsmight tend to make senior LEOs keep their less informed, or overly authoritarian, brethren under better control. My reasoning is as follows: Since LEOs have to consider the question of the potential presence of weapons at virtually EVERY stop they make, they can reasonably be expected to have to be especially familiar with the local laws governing weapons (lest they encounter one). After all, the gun laws are generally pretty straightforward, less complex than drug laws or traffic laws, and have a more direct bearing on the officer's safety. Since it is something the LEO has to deal with so often, probably more than any other single factor, it would be reasonable to ensure that officers are especially well trained in the relevant laws. I bet they all know about the "21 foot rule," eventhe ones whohaven't heard about the legality of OC in their state- that doesn't seem right to me. I'm supposing that getting nasty notes in your record, or facing the possibility of more "retraining" or other hassles, would at least get the officer on the scene to check with his watch commander or supervisor before doing something like what happened in Penn just recently.