On pg. 3:
The City will prohibit firearms in all City buildings, and will
post appropriate signage to comply with the statute. The
City will also produce signs that can be provided to
property owners, similar to the MPD “No Trespassing” signs.
Wonder how much they'll charge for these signs?
Or are they being provided free of charge, thereby showing that the city is officially anti-rights?
Or are there also "lawful carry welcome here" signs available for free from Madistan?
No force, real or implied, may be used during a consensual contact…
the citizen must feel “free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise
terminate the encounter.” Any inherently coercive behavior on the part
of the police, that would "communicate to a reasonable person that he
is not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business,"
will transform the contact into a stop, requiring suspicion of criminal activity.
During a consensual encounter, officers may ask for identification and may
ask if the subject is armed or carrying a concealed weapon. The subject is
under no obligation to answer questions, provide identification or even
remain with the officer. If the subject is lawfully armed (an open carry
situation, for example) the officer may ask to separate the weapon from the
subject, but the subject is generally under no obligation to comply.
Wonder why they correctly use "citizen" in the first part, but "subject" in the second, when both are talking about consensual encounters with no RAS of a crime?
This, however, is just wrong:
If an officer possesses reasonable suspicion that a subject they have
lawfully stopped is armed, a frisk is permissible. If a weapon is discovered
during a frisk, the officer may secure it. Once the weapon has been secured,
then the officer can investigate whether the subject is a CCW license holder.
So first take it away, then investigate whether it's legally held?
Sounds like Wray has been talking with Flynn.
And they're making no distinction between OC & cc.
If the subject does possess a CCW license and no arrest is made for the
original offense, then the weapon should be returned to them at the
completion of the stop. Weapons should be returned in a manner that
does not expose officers to any risk of attack.
:banghead: :cuss:
Because lawfully-armed citizens with gov't-issued licenses are such a horrible danger to officers who aren't committing crimes against said citizens, right?
In one place they get this right (must be acting with lawful authority), but here they forget that part & make it a blanket "you can demand, they must give in":
CCW license holders who are carrying a concealed weapon are not required to
inform law enforcement that they are armed during police encounters. However,
if asked by a law enforcement officer whether they are armed a CCW license
must display his/her license and a photo ID.
Act 35 does not require CCW license holders who are armed to notify law
enforcement of that fact during an encounter. They do, however, need to
produce their license and photo ID if requested.
