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

Thread: Showing CHL if OC in Portland

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2

    Showing CHL if OC in Portland

    Hey guys,

    I have searched, but can't find this information. I have my Oregon CHL and CC daily. I do not open carry much, mostly when camping and hiking. If I were to open carry in Portland or one of the other areas that has banned it, and I was approached by a LEO, would I have to produce a CHL if prompted?

    Thanks in advance for your help!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    Yes!
    *Disclaimer~ I am not an attorney, i do not give legal advice. Any opinion stated here is in no way meant to insinuate, imply, compel or encourage that you should do anything that is illegal either knowingly or otherwise. My answers however valid may not be complete or applicable to your individual situation. I strongly recommend that you do your own research, make your own decisions and hire an attorney for legal advice ~

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Medford, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    125
    My answer would me a no. why? Because the officer must have reasonable suspicion of a crime to detained any individual. If a officer detained you, you should tell him/her that you are audio recording (if you have a audio recorder), that you don't consent to this detainment (illegal or legal it can help in the a lawsuit), you don't consent to any searches and seizure, and you plead the 5th (right to remain silent). If the officer ask you any question and you don't want to answer, just say "no comment" or "I plead the 5th". Most officer will ask these question such as "do you have a CHL", "Is it loaded", "Do you have ID" all you have to do is say no comment. You are not legally required to answer any of the officer questions. If the officer start to demand you, just let them know and on audio recording "for the record I don't consent to any search and seizure, but I won't resist" In Oregon, we don't have an stop and ID law except when you are driving.

    Disclaimer: This is not legal advice, please seek a lawyer for legal advice.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Medford, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    125
    Side note: For your information it is not illegal to open carry in the state of Oregon without a CHL, but city and county have the authority to banned LOADED firearms in there jurisdiction when a person does not have a CHL. So you can legally carry a firearms unloaded without any restriction anywhere in the state of Oregon except for public building, capital building, court building, federal building, and the (GFSZA) Gun Free School Zone Act (1995 federal law) of a 1000' radius of a property from K to K12. Once you have a CHL, then you are exempt with any firearm from all gun bans and GFSZA except court buildings and federal buildings.

    Disclaimer: This is not legal advice, please seek a lawyer for legal advice.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    be careful the advice you take. you may wind up in jail.
    *Disclaimer~ I am not an attorney, i do not give legal advice. Any opinion stated here is in no way meant to insinuate, imply, compel or encourage that you should do anything that is illegal either knowingly or otherwise. My answers however valid may not be complete or applicable to your individual situation. I strongly recommend that you do your own research, make your own decisions and hire an attorney for legal advice ~

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Teddybearfrmhell View Post
    be careful the advice you take. you may wind up in jail.
    Even if given proper legal advice one can find theirself in jail due to an over-zealous/ignorant cop.

  7. #7
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    The real law answer is yes and no. Yes if you are in a public building, no, if you are elsewhere. Same as if you were CC.

    Law specifically states you must produce your CHL, if requested by proper authority, while in a public building.

    If you have a CHL, but do not have it on you, they can ticket you, but charge will be dismissed if you present your valid CHL to the court. That is also spelled out in state law.
    Last edited by hermannr; 10-25-2011 at 01:21 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    the goal of some people is to create conflict..... the goal of others is to avoid it. while oc in a banned city the arguement has been made that you need not produce your chl..... its a banned city, you are going to be hassled, ticketed at a minimum, arrested if they can IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO SHOW YOUR CHL.

    you need to understand that IF you are arrested and they can make ANY firearm charge stick, you will have your chl revoked AND most like be barred from ever getting another chl in any jurisdiction. ANY firearms conviction will be enough to deny you.

    my policy, if asked, i produce it. if not asked, i dont volunteer it....
    *Disclaimer~ I am not an attorney, i do not give legal advice. Any opinion stated here is in no way meant to insinuate, imply, compel or encourage that you should do anything that is illegal either knowingly or otherwise. My answers however valid may not be complete or applicable to your individual situation. I strongly recommend that you do your own research, make your own decisions and hire an attorney for legal advice ~

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    The short, easy answer is yes, show your CHL if open carrying in PDX.

    The long, convoluted answer where you end up being a test-case in a courtroom is probably (in my opinion) no.

    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    Law specifically states you must produce your CHL, if requested by proper authority, while in a public building.
    I don't believe this to be 100% accurate. Can you provide a citation?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Medford, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    125
    You should ask Oregon Firearm Federation they will give you the RIGHT answer. http://oregonfirearms.org/
    Since you only will get arguments in this site, Oregon Firearm Federation is my recommendation or a lawyer. Truly there will be people
    on this site that will immediately type you to give away your rights to any public official. I will never recommend you to surrender your
    personal privacy to anyone.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Drouin View Post
    You should ask Oregon Firearm Federation they will give you the RIGHT answer. http://oregonfirearms.org/
    Since you only will get arguments in this site, Oregon Firearm Federation is my recommendation or a lawyer. Truly there will be people
    on this site that will immediately type you to give away your rights to any public official. I will never recommend you to surrender your
    personal privacy to anyone.

    huh?
    *Disclaimer~ I am not an attorney, i do not give legal advice. Any opinion stated here is in no way meant to insinuate, imply, compel or encourage that you should do anything that is illegal either knowingly or otherwise. My answers however valid may not be complete or applicable to your individual situation. I strongly recommend that you do your own research, make your own decisions and hire an attorney for legal advice ~

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , , LaGrande, OR.
    Posts
    74
    Why should we have to show our CHL, when we open carry which is perfectly legal? (without any kind of permission slip from the teacher) Except of course in Porkland area, where alot of laws are different. It's a totally seperate communist country. "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE "INFRINGED". Even a CHL is an "INFRINGEMENT" Constitutional Carry for everyone ! That would cause the brady bunch some concern. Lock and Load Folks....they are coming !










    WHEN PEOPLE LOSE EVERYTHING.....THEN THEY LOSE IT !

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by Soilent Green View Post
    Why should we have to show our CHL, when we open carry which is perfectly legal? (without any kind of permission slip from the teacher) Except of course in Porkland area, where alot of laws are different.
    well since the OP was about the need to show your CHL if you open carry in portland.... the answer is still YES
    *Disclaimer~ I am not an attorney, i do not give legal advice. Any opinion stated here is in no way meant to insinuate, imply, compel or encourage that you should do anything that is illegal either knowingly or otherwise. My answers however valid may not be complete or applicable to your individual situation. I strongly recommend that you do your own research, make your own decisions and hire an attorney for legal advice ~

  14. #14
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Teddybearfrmhell View Post
    well since the OP was about the need to show your CHL if you open carry in portland.... the answer is still YES
    Not to throw gasoline on a fire but....well okay just a little gasoline......

    NOTE: This is merely a thought exercise in the technicalities of the law as written, not as it is enforced in real life.

    What is the difference between an officer in say, Medford, stopping an OCer "to make sure you're not a felon and therefore prohibited from carrying" and an officer in Portland stopping an OCer "to make sure you have a permit to carry because you might be carrying loaded" (he can't tell if your clip is loaded if it's installed in the pistol.

    Since ORS 166.173 states that local ordinances "do not apply to CHL holders" then the ordinance does not apply (i.e. it is not enforceable). If it does not apply, the officer has no means by which to lawfully demand production of the CHL (for open carry). Also, since loaded open carry is not unlawful for anyone with a CHL, and unloaded open carry is lawful for anyone not otherwise prohibited, case law would seem to make the mere presense of a firearm, in and of itself, insufficient to provide Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that a crime is being committed.

    Further, ORS 166.170 specifically states that only the Legislature can regulate firearms "Except as expressly authorized by state statute...". ORS 166.173, while granting authority to cities and counties to "...adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession of loaded firearms in public places as defined in ORS 161.015" it does not, as required by 166.170 grant express authority to inspect firearms. In fact, the only time that the legislature allows inspection of a firearm for loaded condition is under ORS 166.380 (in or on a public building). 166.173 does not grant express authority to cities and counties to broaden the occasions upon which they may inspect firearms for loaded condition and combined with the wording of 166.173 that specifically states it does not apply to CHL holders, cities and counties are, technically, unable to stop for inspection of documents (CHL) or load condition in the absense of some OTHER reason that gives them RAS that you are comitting a crime.

    However, as I've said before.....REALITY CHECK...Do YOU want to be the test case (no, not you Tedde, I'm fairly certain neither of us wants to be the test case).
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    its funny what people opine but would never actually DO.

    i belong to a motorcycle forum where this asshat often tells newbs that they dont need to balance their new motorcycle tires (something he READ in a magazine about how this famous racer doesnt use anything to balance his new tires) .....

    well this asshat has pics of his bikes posted and each and everyone of his bike has visible lead weights on the rims..... so this asshat is not only a foolish know-it-all but also a danger to some newb who is going to listen to him AND die in a wreck because he thinks said asshat is right BUT the asshat doesnt even follow his OWN advice.......

    so, what that got to do with this???? not a thing IF you are in portland and want to OC without a chl..... not just a chl and refusing to show it, but no chl at all because its an INFRINGEMENT ....... seriously guys........ put up or shut up..... BE THE TEST CASE!!!

    not one of you who espouses the refusal, or claims infringement will ever do it, you would rather some witless newb do it for you and you should be ashamed.
    *Disclaimer~ I am not an attorney, i do not give legal advice. Any opinion stated here is in no way meant to insinuate, imply, compel or encourage that you should do anything that is illegal either knowingly or otherwise. My answers however valid may not be complete or applicable to your individual situation. I strongly recommend that you do your own research, make your own decisions and hire an attorney for legal advice ~

  16. #16
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    The OP question was "would I have to". The OP also stated that he already had his CHL...so

    It is quite simple. You state what the law states, and that is "only if you are in a public building." ORS 166.380

    If you were to ask a lawyer, that is the same answer he would give to the OP question as posed, with the supplimental information given.

    I did not say, nor did anyone else say, that the person should/or should not show his CPL at any other time. I only stated that was the only place it was required if asked by "lawful authority".

    Does not mean that you may possibly be asked for your CHL at some other time? Of course not, you know that (some of) the Portland police like to play by their own rules and don't really care what the law states. It is up to the person, in that particular position, at that particular time, to determine for him/herself if they want the hassel, or not. If they have some method of backing up their side of the story, or not.

    BTW: IMHO even with Oregons crazy wiretap laws, I do not believe you need to tell a police officer, in the course of his public duties, that you are recording him. I think there are enough court cases (yes in other states) that have proven that...again...you may create another hassle for yourself doing that, but I also think it would be more impressive in a civil rights suit if you did tell the office he is being recorded and he still abuses his position.

    There are other places beside Portland that have police officers that think OC is for their own elite private club only too, again reguardless of what the law states. Of course, those kinds of officers can end up costing the local tax payers, but that is what happens when you don't train and control them properly.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    The actual citation to the law trumps someone's opinion every dang time.
    Funny how that works out, isn't it?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    55
    The only time according to the law you are required to show it is if you are in carrying what would be defined as a concealed weapon upon your person or in your immediate possession in a vehicle.

    The 166.173 only indicates that individuals who are exempt must be licensed. Indicates nothing about having the CHL on their immediate person. To quote:

    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.

    (2) Ordinances adopted under subsection (1) of this section do not apply to or affect....

    (c) A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.
    166.262 Limitation on peace officer’s authority to arrest for violating ORS 166.250 or 166.370. A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating ORS 166.250 (1)(a) or (b) or 166.370 (1) if the person has in the person’s immediate possession a valid license to carry a firearm as provided in ORS 166.291 and 166.292. [1999 c.1040 §5]
    Nowhere in 166.262 does it indicate anything regarding 166.173, only 155.250 (1)(a) or (b) or 166.370 which are

    166.250. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section or ORS 166.260, 166.270, 166.274, 166.291, 166.292 or 166.410 to 166.470, a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly:

    (a) Carries any firearm concealed upon the person;

    (b) Possesses a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible to the person within any vehicle;
    and

    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......
    Again I just quote the law. I am not saying anything on how some police officers will react.
    Last edited by Historyman1942; 11-05-2011 at 11:37 AM.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    I see a lot of this....

    "It's an infringement of my rights to be required to show a CHL or required to have a CHL as it's an infringement".

    If the Supreme Court of United States agreed with you, they would have taken Charles Williams v. State of Maryland. They did not.

    2A constitutional doctrine is still in it's infancy in terms of effects on the gun owning public at large. We've had numerous state cases, where the Oregon State Supreme Court nullified the state RKBA provision (which was later partially restored by not fully by a later case) over a semi-auto ban passed by Portland. They were challenged in court by OSSA, and they lost. This resulted in a state preemption statute passed by the Legislature and put into law by veto-override over then (and now again) Governor Kitzhaber, which annihilated the local ordinance.

    In the next 2 years, there will be a right to carry decision coming out of the SCOTUS. There will be further litigation coming from that decision, but most of the battle will be won.

    If something is a right, it cannot be subject to discretionary licensing, either prior restraint form or post-hoc. Oregon allows cities and counties to ban loaded carry but exempts a CHL holder. Though Oregon claims to be a shall-issue state, there is still too much discretion for residents in terms of the "willies clause" in the statute, definitely too much discretion for contiguous state residents (it's may-issue fully), and does not issue to residents of non-contiguous states (WY, MT, UT).

    When you eliminate the discretion involved, they cannot justify doing anything to the courts in terms of charging money for the $50 portion of the fee. The fingerprinting check, sure (which is already $15). But remember that the sheriff's are required by state law to charge the $50 fee, and cannot lower it, even in cases of indigent applicants (court case opportunity here).

    If we get to the level that Sheriff's cannot have discretion and then cannot dote over applications to the point they have been because now it's a rubber stamp, and they cannot do a bunch of "investigation time" to justify that $50 to a federal court, the sheriff's will not want anything to do with it and will ask the legislature to repeal the concealed carry ban and remove the state preemption exemptions law (ORS 166.173). You win it politically, it won't come back, and you'll have Vermont/Arizona-style carry (without the problematic disclosure requirement that's in Alaska law...)

    Getting back to the subject at hand. Legality and practicality are two completely different things. The federal district court of Oregon is not going to rule that you do not have to show your CHL in a plaintiff civil rights action against officers demanding your CHL, you refusing to disclose, and them arresting you for a crime under local law. The police will be covered by immunity principles under Ex Parte Young, even if you win the underlying case that says they cannot require it in the first place. Your lawyer will get court fees, and *maybe* you'll get your non-refundable bail money back, but that's about it.

    Until we get some better case law out of SCOTUS in terms of identifying the right to carry already pre-existent, and some Federal District Court or 9th Circuit case law involving the applicability of such cases to California (currently being litigated in Richards v. Prieto in the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit), the best choice of options is to show the CHL to spare yourself the bail money and the arrest, and spare the rest of us bad case law which can bite us in the ass.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    thank you gray , i hope your voice of common sense helps shed the light for some of those who would advise others instead of taking the lead themselves in this instance.
    Last edited by Teddybearfrmhell; 11-06-2011 at 07:27 PM.
    *Disclaimer~ I am not an attorney, i do not give legal advice. Any opinion stated here is in no way meant to insinuate, imply, compel or encourage that you should do anything that is illegal either knowingly or otherwise. My answers however valid may not be complete or applicable to your individual situation. I strongly recommend that you do your own research, make your own decisions and hire an attorney for legal advice ~

  21. #21
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Thanks Gray. I think it's the REALITY CHECK part that so many don't seem to get. What the law says vs how it's going to happen in the real world.

    Just like the Jeff Maxwell situation with the Oregon University system. That happened in what, 2009? We just got the decision from the appeals court last month...and that was with Oregon Firearms Federation pushing their own suit on the law, not for Maxwell, because of how the "system" operates. That's a long damn time from Maxwell being booted out of school to a proper legal decision...and a lot of money.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Thanks Gray. I think it's the REALITY CHECK part that so many don't seem to get. What the law says vs how it's going to happen in the real world.

    Just like the Jeff Maxwell situation with the Oregon University system. That happened in what, 2009? We just got the decision from the appeals court last month...and that was with Oregon Firearms Federation pushing their own suit on the law, not for Maxwell, because of how the "system" operates. That's a long damn time from Maxwell being booted out of school to a proper legal decision...and a lot of money.
    Indeed it is.

    Litigants have to deal with the realities of how courts will rule, deal with things in a narrowly tailored fashion. I prefer Vermont/Arizona-style carry, and I support OFF's efforts to annihilate the concealed carry ban, the preemption exemption language, as well as the public building law off the books via the political solutions of the Legislature. I predict that any effort to do this would have to wait until after Governor Kitzhaber's first term is up (2015).

    The 4th amendment has already been significantly weakened to the point of near nothing, and efforts to use the 4th amendment as a vehicle for greater 2A rights will weaken both at the same time. I would rather work on getting all of these laws dealt with politically with judicial points of pressure on the current CHL system (fees, willies clause, non-citizen issues, non-contiguous states) being used as an Archimedes lever on getting things legislatively repealed. Think about it this way: If you both open carry and concealed carry without a license, there's no public building ban, and there's no more local ordinances exemption, what can the cops arrest you for? If they did, they wouldn't have immunity to shield their actions.

    Think smarter, not harder.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2
    Summary:

    Do you "have" to show your CHL? No. You don't HAVE to do anything. Just ask a tax protester.

    But if you do refuse, expect to be hauled off to be booked for resisting an officer, or some other random "you disrespected an officer" type charge. (Whether it is justified or not.) Expect to lose your CHL while the proceedings are pending. Expect that you will have to spend time and money fighting the charge. Expect that the case will go to the Oregon Supreme Court. Expect that you will likely forfeit your concealed carry privileges until the case is settled.

    If you are not willing to be the "test case", then show your CHL. I, for one, am not willing to be a test case.

  24. #24
    Regular Member badkarma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Duvall, Washington
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by CharonPDX View Post
    Summary:

    Do you "have" to show your CHL? No. You don't HAVE to do anything. Just ask a tax protester.

    But if you do refuse, expect to be hauled off to be booked for resisting an officer, or some other random "you disrespected an officer" type charge. (Whether it is justified or not.) Expect to lose your CHL while the proceedings are pending. Expect that you will have to spend time and money fighting the charge. Expect that the case will go to the Oregon Supreme Court. Expect that you will likely forfeit your concealed carry privileges until the case is settled.

    If you are not willing to be the "test case", then show your CHL. I, for one, am not willing to be a test case.
    Most cops call it "Stupid Tax" if they ask you to do something that to them is resonable(Can I see your licence,CPL, what is your name?) and you refuse. They will find something else very minor but with in the law that most cops would never use. But since you wanted to try their authority they will apply a stupid tax to your ass and then say "Don't you wish you would have just given me your license/CPL/name in the first place? Now I got all of it and your going away with a fine for being stupid."
    You can argue what is legal and what is right all day long. The end result depends on the situation and cop.

  25. #25
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by badkarma View Post
    Most cops call it "Stupid Tax" if they ask you to do something that to them is resonable(Can I see your licence,CPL, what is your name?) and you refuse. They will find something else very minor but with in the law that most cops would never use. But since you wanted to try their authority they will apply a stupid tax to your ass and then say "Don't you wish you would have just given me your license/CPL/name in the first place? Now I got all of it and your going away with a fine for being stupid."
    You can argue what is legal and what is right all day long. The end result depends on the situation and cop.
    And this is why EVERYONE (not just open carriers) should be in the habit of carrying at least an audio recording device at all times. Absent RAS for an initial detention (unless you give up your rights voluntarilly), any other ******** that is drummed up will be "fruit of the poisonous tree" and SHOULD (never think that it's automatic) be easilly supressed by the defense.

    The attitude/tactic you described is called "contempt of cop" and is the product of too damn many sheeple blindly obeying, often with the naieve belief "If you don't have anything to hide, why not"?

    Is it inconvienient? You bet cha. Can the stakes get high? You bet cha. If you don't have an audio recording will the cop lie? Unfortunately the answer to that is also you bet cha. Trust me, the first time I witnessed a police officer intentionally and blatantly lying on the witness stand (about what happened when he ticketed me) my entire world view began to disentegrate!
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

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
  •