dougwg
Regular Member
imported post
Venator wrote:
While I agreewhat you are saying is true, I highly doubt ANY judge will see it that way, or LEO, therefore in this very narrow scenario, I will (reluctantly) give ID because I feel that the probability of being charged and having to pay huge lawyer fees is very high.
I like fights that I know I'm going to win.
Venator wrote:
JeffSayers wrote:Again where is the RAS? You have not given me any reason for the stop other than the person had a gun, which is not RAS. Really think about what you are saying and what I'm saying. I might be an employee with permission from the owner, I might be a friend of the owner and have permission to be there. Keep in mind there are other legal ways to have a handgun in an exempted place other than a CPL.I think Dougs point here is that when carrying concealed (under authority of that license) you are obligated to provide it upon request. What he is seeing is the fact thatby using the authority of that license to OC in a victim zone you are in theory obligated to provide it upon request.
I would agree with Doug here. I could see a judge being allowed to interpret the intent of the disclosure requirement and making this a bad situation.
Guns are allowed in a Meijer's store. The LEO sees a person with a gun. What's his RAS to ask for ID or to detain you? He has to assume you are legal, he can't just ask to see a license, no more than he can just stop a driver to see if he has a license.
This isn't rocket science.
While I agreewhat you are saying is true, I highly doubt ANY judge will see it that way, or LEO, therefore in this very narrow scenario, I will (reluctantly) give ID because I feel that the probability of being charged and having to pay huge lawyer fees is very high.
I like fights that I know I'm going to win.