|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
FL: Open carry makes no sense
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Openly carrying a firearm makes no sense, will endanger rather than protect the public and will cause unique problems to law enforcement officers.
For example, an officer observing a person carrying a firearm would have an obligation to have that person produce the permit. One dilemma that would come about is when a second officer observes the same person without the knowledge of the previous inquiry. |
Comment by:
sheldonsthomas
(12/26/2015)
|
HB 163 red herring - just uninformed on the content of the bill, or deliberate lie? READ the bill. A LEO has no obligation or right to stop an OC'er absent probable cause that a crime is being committed. The probable cause must be developed first.
It's same as a needing a Drivers License to drive. LEO's may not stop motorist willy-nilly just to determine if they possess a Drivers License.
|
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|