No. I didn't even read the application. Not to sound smug, but what are they going to tell me that don't know already.
How did you know where to write your name? :exclaim:
No. I didn't even read the application. Not to sound smug, but what are they going to tell me that don't know already.
While I have not received mine yet, in the CCL class the instructions were if you are carrying and stopped to provide your CCL with your drivers license and to inform the officer you are armed. If you are not armed there is no reason to provide your CCL. The license is your "permission" to carry a firearm concealed, and if you are not carrying there is no reason to provide proof you have said permissions.
Thank You,Hope you get yours soon. Even though the law does not require you to tell LEO unless they ask and if you are carrying and have a license to do so,it is a good idea to inform them just in case some unforeseen circumstances occur and they find out on their own and end up shooting your dumb arse for being hard headed.
You might change your mind the first time you or someone you know gets dragged out of a car at gun point for kindly giving up your rights by "informing" them.
Ever see some of the videos from the duty to inform states like Ohio? The one were the cop keeps telling a permit holder to shut up, keeping him from informing? When the guy finally gets a word in the cop tells him he should have just shot him and then proceeds to continually verbally abuse him. You should be able to google that video up.
Or how about the guy in Texas that gets physically and verbally abused?
There's a big problem with "duty to inform". We should be happy we didn't get that forced on us and I can't see why you'd want to volunteer it.
You're free to do as you wish but there's nothing dumb or hard headed about exercising your rights.
I don't see why, in the absence of RAS you are required to answer a question about 'any (blah-blah) on board'. If it's a traffic stop and not a flight from a bank robbery (lol), why not just say:
"Am I required to answer that? My attorney told me in traffic stops I'm only required to give license and insurance and not answer any questions."
(in a non-disclosure state, obviously where you have to tell the officer up front)
The words in the letter that accompanies the CCL license reads: "These documents must be displayed to a law enforcement officer upon request while the officer is acting in an official capacity and with lawful authority". As usual the DoJ weasle worded it to the benefit of law enforcement. Certainly an on dutry officer detaining us for a traffic stop is acting in official capacity and certainly he/she has the lawful authority to do so. Might be just as well to swallow our constitutional pride and display our CCL at the get go. After all we all did that when we submitted our CCL applications.
I can't understand why a person who is armed would want to piss anyone off. If you are stopped, your knee jerk opinion of weather RAS exists is of no importance. The LEO is in charge, and you pressing the envelope will only result in him making your day really bad. The DOJ chose to call the sidearms we carry weapons, the word weapon carries with it a mind set meaning to antis that creates alarm. You're not giving up rights by offering comfort to what could be a bad situation. Caring enough about your rights requires some cooperation, stopping something from becoming a problem, could stop it from becoming a law. IMHO, boar out.
I can't understand why a person who is armed would want to piss anyone off. If you are stopped, your knee jerk opinion of weather RAS exists is of no importance. The LEO is in charge, and you pressing the envelope will only result in him making your day really bad. The DOJ chose to call the sidearms we carry weapons, the word weapon carries with it a mind set meaning to antis that creates alarm. You're not giving up rights by offering comfort to what could be a bad situation. Caring enough about your rights requires some cooperation, stopping something from becoming a problem, could stop it from becoming a law. IMHO, boar out.
Caring enough about your rights requires some cooperation, stopping something from becoming a problem, could stop it from becoming a law. IMHO, boar out.
I can't understand why a person who is armed would want to piss anyone off. If you are stopped, your knee jerk opinion of weather RAS exists is of no importance. The LEO is in charge, and you pressing the envelope will only result in him making your day really bad. The DOJ chose to call the sidearms we carry weapons, the word weapon carries with it a mind set meaning to antis that creates alarm. You're not giving up rights by offering comfort to what could be a bad situation. Caring enough about your rights requires some cooperation, stopping something from becoming a problem, could stop it from becoming a law. IMHO, boar out.
And this very attitude give a police state more power. Surrender your rights, then don't cry when you don't have any.
It was either in VA or WA where a judge ruled that just because someone is armed, doesn't mean he cannot get upset.