imported post
Ajetpilot wrote:
You just don't get it, do you?
Not what you're trying for, no. You stated "doing a perfectly legal activity." However, there was nothing presented to show the activity was perfectly legal, and a reasonable person with knowledge of the law and the objective facts of the situation could see the law being broken.
Try to stay with me on this -
1) What is the first rule of firearms? If your answer is "always assume they are loaded" proceed onto 2. If not, please go back to remedial guns 101
2) Does loaded carry on a bus require a CPL? If yes, goto 3. If no, please state which exemption to the law you have.
3) At this point, an officer has reason to believe you might be breaking the law. He asks to see a CPL under 9.41.050. Do you have one and show it to him? If so, go to 4. If not, go to 5.
4) You show the officer your CPL. He says "thanks" and leaves you alone because there is no longer objective reason to believe you are breaking the law.
5) You state "I'm not carrying a CPL/I don't have one, but the gun is unloaded." According to 1, above, a reasonable person would not believe that to be true without verifying. At this point, looking at the circumstances, it appears you have a loaded gun in a vehicle while not having a CPL. Hence the reason for a terry stop/reasonable suspicion to search and see if the weapon is loaded.
Before it's verified that you either have a CPL or are actually carrying unloaded, you are NOT engaged in a "perfectly legal activity" by an objective observer. It sucks we have anomalous carry as such, but that's the setup of the current law. Talk to your legislator about it.