He's also the one suggesting that "just because the LEO does'nt know you" is sufficient RAS to confiscate under "officer safety".Gotcha, I'm caught up now
It's upthread too but i'm not gonna go back and find it.
He's also the one suggesting that "just because the LEO does'nt know you" is sufficient RAS to confiscate under "officer safety".Gotcha, I'm caught up now
His point is the phrase lawfully owned jeans that LEO can run any hand gun at any time.
You mean to tell me that just because an officer "doesn't know you" is not enough RAS to take possession of your firearm?
Just for clarification purposes these two posts were sarcasm related to a discussion upthread.All this "officer safety" confiscation doesn't matter. He can still take possession of your firearm to check and see if it is "legally possessed."
Says so right on the LTCH you signed.
Just for clarification purposes these two posts were sarcasm related to a discussion upthread.
He's also the one suggesting that "just because the LEO does'nt know you" is sufficient RAS to confiscate under "officer safety".
It's upthread too but i'm not gonna go back and find it.
yes, that is my point
You haven't given any support for holding such an opinion, is it something you just randomly adopted?
You haven't given any support for holding such an opinion, is it something you just randomly adopted?
YES, but he has 50 now, let us see where this goes
Just curious. Would this opinion that the "lawfully possessed" phrase giving the mandate to take possession and run the numbers be something that a Dept. policy directive pushes or should it be something left up to an individual officer in the field to interpret this "grey area" as such?yes, that is my point
Shenanigans. Its illegal to possess any stolen property. That doesn't give LE carte blanche to stop everyone walking on the sidewalk and run the serial numbers on their phone or iPods.
Just curious. Would this opinion that the "lawfully possessed" phrase giving the mandate to take possession and run the numbers be something that a Dept. policy directive pushes or should it be something left up to an individual officer in the field to interpret this "grey area" as such?
Is'nt this after all the objective of the OP to determine exactly what constitutes Dept policy regarding the individual officer"s conduct in the field?'
Oh, so you think opinion is your ally? But you were merely adopted by opinions. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see the facts until I was already a man, by then to me it was only blinding. The opinions betray you because they belong to me.
FTFYAgreed. He didn't stop OP because of stolen property. OP was stopped for speeding. The encounter went a slightly different way, as almost all do in one way or another, and the illegal events transpired.
Oh, so you think opinion is your ally? But you were merely adopted by opinions. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see the facts until I was already a man, by then to me it was only blinding. The opinions betray you because they belong to me.
enough. I didn't join to send a PM. I had 50 earlier. Sent a PM, and guess what, still posting, and not just here. I will continue to post, because this is a forum.