Fallguy

I'm not trying to speak in general, for all states. Just NM and somewhat in TN. If you look back my first post was this ruling wouldn't help anyone in TN much or for that matter anyone is a state where OC requires a permit. But again in NM OC does not require a permit ....it is just as legal as blowing bubbles... I mean what are LEOs supposed to do if someone calls to say someone is wearing a AC/DC shirt in the movie theater just because the owner dosen't like AC/DC? They can tell the guy to leave for the owner, but are they supposed to hold him and search him too...remember he is not violating any law and apparently is not suspected of violating a law. I agree the orginal call does not limit what the officers can do. The funniest thing about this whole thread to me is that...some of the very ones that mention how the written law isn't the only thing to consider, that there is also case law, are the ones that are arguing the opposite point of what is now case law. And not case law from a local general sessions judge or even a state court, but a US district court judge. Not trying to argue with you theolog, just trying to be more specifics od this case and not genrealities...but you are right about one of the ways case law comes about...

theolog there is a difference between NM and TN. I agree OCing in TN can cause intreaction with a LEO and that is fine, as there could be a crime if the person doesn't have a HCP. In NM though there is no a crime afoot because of simply OCing a handgun. The "call for service" in this case was to ask the man to leave. That is all that needed to be done. Also I don't think it was simply the talking to the man the judge found unreasonable, it was the detaining and searching him....and that was because he was commiting no crime and was not supspected of commiting one.

Based on the above I have no problem with the officers approaching him and asking him to leave. But that is all they should have done, unless there was someother reason he was commiting a crime.

Too bad can't make the ones that are giving rules and regs or other info from the admin red or some other color at least different from the other stickies.

I'll be at work, but if the weather cooperates here is something for some of you that may want to ride down the trace a bit further instead of heading back. Welcome to the Official Trail of Tears Motorcycle Ride Web Site

Welcome Nice song...

I like the new light blue back ground for sticky threads.

Good to see you posting again Eddie. Just holler if there is ever anything I can do.

Welcome

True, but the point is the criminal has a choice whether to interact with an OCer or not, he doesn't always have that choice with a LEO. When given the choice he probably wouldn't. That is why I don't think it is quite and "apples to apples" comparison when someone mentions OCing by LEOs not deterring attacks upon them and it not deterring it upon non-LEO OCers.

Well don't most criminals try to avoid cops? I think most attacks on on cops by criminals are after the cop has initiated contact with them, not when the criminal has just walked up to the cop. Right?

Was surprised Gemma didn't tell. I think Jax TCBs he just doesn't go overboard. They took care of the muscle pretty good. Wonder how long the doctor will hold out now that the blinders are off? What about when the Henry Rollins character finds out about the deal with the head aryan guy and the Mayans?

You can use the above to set the default for each thread you subscribe to. You can also change that for an individual thread by scrolling down in from the posting screen to Additional Options > Thread Subscription (Notification Type) and set it for just that individual thread. Also you can subscibe to a thread that you do not post in by Thread Tools > Subscribe to this thread Located toward the top of the thread.

Welcome

On the seeing if it legal for him to carry, Since OC is legal without a permit in NM, wouldn't they need some reason to think it wasn't legal for him to carry the gun other than the mere fact he had a gun? I have no problem with the manager not approaching him. But if the manager doesn't want firearms in his place, why doesn't he post a sign. If the place was posted, I missed that in the story. If the manager wanted the cops to ask him to leave, why didn't the manager say that and the cops simply ask the man to leave? I agree being a LEO can be a "no win" situation as far as public perception sometimes. I think you are right, but it has been determined what I think about the law doesn't carry any weight and I no longer look up and post links to laws. But even if that is the case, if the business was not posted and he had not been asked to leave, then he wasn't violating policy or law at that point was he? Yes, but again, isn't there job to enforce the law. In NM OC without a permit is just as legal as chewing gum. He was breaking no law (if not posted or asked to leave) If they had asked the manager do you want him to leave, the manager say yes and they relay the message and that be the end of it, probably would have never turned out like this. Not everyone has to be treated like a criminal (or even a suspect without some sort of PC) just because the law was called upon them.

But how far are the cops supposed to go when someone is not committing any crime, just because someone called? Aren't they supposed to enforce the law, not the policy of a business? If the theater manager asked the guy to leave or asked the police to make him leave, that may have been different, but that apparently isn't what happened. If a person doesn't like others chewing bubble gum and calls the police about someone blowing a bubble, are the officers supposed to detain the person, take his bubble gum and ask him a bunch of question, just because someone called them?

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome

Done

It was brought up so it could be excluded. Believe me the type of puncuation (colon, semi-colon, comma or period) and it's location makes a large difference in the meaning of something, espeically a law. I respect what the judges say and if you're in their courtroom then unless you appeal then that is it. But let me ask this. Since 39-17-1322 only applies when used in self-defense, if they intended for it to no longer be a defense, why not simply remove it instead of mentioning it in another law. As I read it, it means the rest of the subpart does not withstand 39-17-1322. But you are right in that I don't want anyone to go by soley on what I say to keep them out of trouble with the law. I have uselly tried to post info to keep people out of trouble. Also...I have never professed to have an above average knowledge of (or any understanding of for that matter) the law. People have posted asking what the law says about certain situations in the past and I have linked the law that I thought dealt with their question. Usually not trying to say it meant one thing or another. But then sometimes a discussion would arise and I would state why I thought whatever I thought. If it was challenged I would address those points. If had something from a reliable source I would post that information. But I have about decided that unless you have esq behind your name or a badge on your chest (not directed at you chip) no one thinks you can have any knowledge of the law. So I will quit addressing it in any of my future post.

Does look like the intended for a violation of 39-17-1359 to be cause to suspened or revoke your HCP.

Welcome

They don't conduct criminal background checks on a Federal, State and local level when renewing your DL.