gravedancer wrote:If I got "made" while concealing, id have no problem whatsoever with an LEO asking me if I had a permit, so long as once I produced it (or my ID so he could run it and verify for himself) he let me on my way without any harassment.
gravedancer wrote:Youre talking about on the street, or in a theater, depending on the example. Im talking about in a school zone. Just randomly out on the street, I would agree 100% that simply carrying a gun is not RAS for a stop.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If OC on a school is RAS then by your own logic and admission it is RAS if a cop sees you conceal. UtahJarhead just gave specific precedents of the latter not being true, so the former must not be either.
No, youre just trying to twist words around to support your own argument. So let me spell it out for you:
Most of the population would be legally allowed to open carry (except in school zones or other restricted areas). So open carrying anywhere other than those restricted areas should not be RAS for a stop.
However, the vast majority of the population would NOT be legal to conceal a weapon anywhere, or open carry in a school zone. For that reason, I believe it would be RAS for a stop. Ultimately, it doesnt matter what you and I believe is RAS. It matters what a judge and/or jury would believe is RAS, if it came down to it. I just happen to believe that a judge or jury would be more likely to agree with me than with you.
The bottom line is, if someone wants to open carry to walmart, I agree 100% that that in and of itself is not RAS. Most people in Utah would be legal to do so, so any cop that believes they are carrying illegally is going against the odds. That removes the "reasonable" portion from RAS.
But if the same person carries in a school zone (open or concealed), then it would be "reasonable", simply because odds are the person is not legal to have a weapon there.
If the law were worded that the LEO has to KNOW that a law is being broken for a stop, then my position on this would change. But they just have to have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a law is being broken.
The problem here, I think, is that "reasonable" is subjective. What I think is reasonable may not be what you think is reasonable. And what you think is reasonable may not be what the average cop on the street thinks is reasonable. Unfortunately, until some court or lawmaker somewhere spells out exactly what is reasonable and what isnt, were always going to have this debate, and there will always be cases of the law being enforced inconsistently, because even within the law enforcement community you with have varying opinions as to what is reasonable.
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. All you leave behind is a lot of noisy baggage."