quychang said:
And again, I have to go to the argument that you might have a hard time selling this to the average OEO on the street as meeting the criteria. I'm sure technically you are absolutely correct. He's still going to expect an empty cylinder as being the first one under the hammer. I'm probably wrong, but I wish a lawyer, or a LEO would weigh in on this conversation
The last time I had a the privilege of having a similar conversation with a Peace Officer it was quite cordial. And when I offered to discuss the matter and go over the actual code with his Duty Sergeant and/or Lieutenant we did just that. We were discussing whether my (concealed) carry permit allowed me to open carry my 1911 fully loaded.
Admittedly, I get whatever "privilege" is given to middle-aged, fat, balding, white guys who dress reasonably conservatively (for having a 1911 OCd on his hip). But I'd like to think my comportment also contributed a lot. I suspect my ability to bring up the code on their laptop knowing that we wanted to look at 53-5-7xx (carry permit section) and 76-10-5xx (general firearms laws) probably also gave me a little credibility as I brought up the various relevant sections and explained the interactions between them.
Now, this was a unique situation in that it was at a major city event (Independence Day midway) with the Sergeant and Lieutenant close at hand.
Under other situations, I'd not argue much with an officer on the street. If he wanted to issue a citation, I'd sign it. If he insisted I remove a round or two, I'd do so. If he wanted to impound my gun or arrest me, I'd not offer physical resistance.
I would then go as soon as practicable to visit with the Duty Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, Deputy Chief, and/or Chief. I expect they'd pull out the actual code book at my request and we'd go over the code. And I fully expect they'd come to agreement with me on what that code means. It just isn't that hard to understand once you read it carefully, and especially once someone explains it. Especially once someone explains it, someone else reading the code has only a couple of choices: Accept that explanation as accurate, or else put forth their own explanation. But their alternate explanation needs to comport with the code they are reading; not with their faulty understanding or analogies of the code, but of the code itself.
I think most of the police leadership in Utah departments is well enough versed in reading statutes, and have enough personal integrity that when confronted with that choice--in a non-dangerous environment like their office--they are much more likely to say, "Crap. I may have been mistaken about this and might need to do some training for my officers."
No doubt, one could act like a jerk and make it very difficult for the police leadership to get to that point. But barring that, my sample size of 2 with Utah officers says they tend to be fairly reasonable and understanding of the law once they get a chance to read it.
If the cops are unreasonable that stage, I'd expect a visit with the city or county attorney would be successful. Those guys care about win/loss record and bringing charges for conduct that isn't illegal is a good way to lose a case. Worst comes to worst, I'd have to hire an attorney.
In the case at hand, I've got a permit and so the whole definition of "loaded" doesn't really apply as I've got that statutory exemption to the bans on carrying a "loaded" firearm. But there are lots of things regarding guns where someone might misinterpret. Does someone have the notion that I can't OC my firearm in a school zone even though I have a permit? Does someone get upset that I'm shooting on public lands where discharge is perfectly legal? Do they think that my permit doesn't allow me to carry a fully loaded long gun in my car? (We'll never find out because I don't carry long guns fully loaded in my car even though I am legal to do so.)
Ultimately, we either know the law and behave legally, prepared to defend against erroneous charges, or else we let our conduct be restricted not by law, but what we think someone else might believe the law to be or even want it to be. If someone wants to err on the side of caution, I won't fault them. I just don't think the risk is all that high on this issue.
Charles
(My second sample was a routine traffic stop for speeding along Highway 6. I gave the local revenue officer* my license and permit to carry. He took possession of my gun as he wrote the ticket and as he handed it back said I couldn't legally have a round in the chamber in the car. Since I had my wallet out I pulled out my reference sheet and explained that not only did my permit allow me to carry fully loaded, but that just the prior legislative session the law had been changed to allow carrying a fully loaded firearm in one's automobile without even needing a permit. He asked if I was a lawyer and I responded, "No. I just figure a guy who carries a gun better know the laws well enough to stay legal." He didn't say another word about my gun, handed it to me, gave me my ticket, and was off to find another donation.)
*Yes, I was exceeding the posted limit on a rural highway under ideal conditions with low traffic volume. No, it wasn't excessive, but the enforcement was. And without even an option to attend traffic class or otherwise minimize the reported points on my insurance, it was obvious that this was far more about revenue than safety or even education. Still, lesson learned. I paid the ticket and celebrated when the speed limit was raised.