General Categories > Carry Issues

LEO's and the open carry law have a different view of things.

<< < (2/3) > >>

Chris C:
I think the Cass County Sheriff's office needs to go back to school.  One of their Deputies stopped me years back and was going to ticket me for factitious plates and improper display of plates.  The Deputy had no idea for a private sale vehicle you can use your existing plates for 30 days instead of running w/o any plates or home made intransit's which that part is illegal (no home made paper signs).  I argued with him even telling him a OPD friend who heard this straight from Marty Conboy's mouth said it's legal and if he wanted he could call Marty's office...he finally let me go.  I got clarification from a Trooper then sent a nice little letter to the Sheriff stating the law for future reference along with my number.  The Rube never called.  Hind sight I should have had him quote me the statute.   >:D  I'd still be waiting. 

grumpy old man:
Yes it was all done via email so I do have the entire conversation in an email format.

ILoveCats:
I did an image search and it seems that holster can leave very little exposed, depending upon how it's worn. While I'm not for LEOs creating their own laws where none exist, when I put myself in the shoes of an LEO and if I saw someone walking around with only a pistol grip peeking out, I have to admit I'd probably chat with the fellow. It either looks like someone who's trying to carry concealed and failing, or someone who's being coy with the open carry laws.

Being coy is unbecoming when it comes to firearm matters. Seems like a $30 OWB holster would be worth it to avoid the butt pain that might result from ignoring two independent LEO opinions.

greg58:
Remember the LEO is not the final say on such an issue.
A Prosecuting attorney would look at the validity of the charge, then decide if it is worth going forward. Then a Judge is going to look at the same issues.
I know it should never come to that point, but LEOs have their arrests thrown out all the time.

Greg58

OnTheFly:
Remember the SD shooting at the Omaha Walgreens?  Initially they were considering charging the victim with carrying a concealed firearm without a permit, but later acknowledged that the gun was not "technically" concealed since a part of it was in sight. 

I personally think it may have been close to concealed or possibly completely concealed, but the OPD thought better of charging someone who successfully defended themselves AND others against some young thugs threatening their lives.  They thought about it for a little while, but I wonder if they factored in the public uproar that would have ensued should they have gone forward with the charges.

Fly

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page