Correct, only when suspected of a crime or a traffic stop can a cop legally ask detain and ask you for your identity. I can recite the Florida 790 statutes by heart. I make teaching state firearm carry laws my priority in the CCW classes I teach.
That's not what the statute says. It says at anytime an LEO demands. Not when suspected of a crime or at a traffic stop.
The Ohio law is going to be changed within a year. the affirmative duty to inform is superfluous and should be done away with
That does not mean that police are legally free to randomly stop any given individual, in any given public location, and demand to know whether or not they are carrying a firearm, and whether or not they possess a concealed carry permit.
Thus proving that it is not moronic hypotheticals and paranoia. Rather it is actual developments, showing that the law is not respected, and will be fought tooth and nail at every opportunity. Federally licensed firearm dealers are registered with the ATF. Their name, business address, phone number, and other relevant information is held by the ATF, pinpointing where they are, and where their firearms are currently stored. That is registration. The private individual, on the other hand, does not have such data stored with the ATF, cannot be found, and thus cannot be compelled to comply with record keeping mandates. With your assertion that the law must be complied with or else. That is not refutation. None of which will cover pedestrian individuals in public venues. Police officers will have no grounds to stop random individuals and search them for illegally possessed firearms, simply because they may be carrying one. Being in a particular location does not amount to reasonable suspicion. Very poorly.
And when the law is broken there are consequences. It isn't. They have no idea what firearms the store has in inventory, as there is no registration. If mandated they of course would be. It's a direct refutation. Never said it was. your comprehension isn't my problem. - - - Updated - - - And when the law is broken there are consequences. It isn't. They have no idea what firearms the store has in inventory, as there is no registration. If mandated they of course would be. It's a direct refutation. Never said it was. your comprehension isn't my problem.
I had to laugh. They must be pretty poor marksmen if it takes them more than one round to hit their target. LOL
Right, anytime a LEO demands, that doesn't mean he can demand for no reason. We already covered when he can demand. Watch open carry videos on youtube. Officers try to get people to give them ID. Once they get schooled on the fourth amendment by the open carry guys, the officers back down and admit they can't ask for your ID unless they suspect you of a crime. Unless you are driving then they can ask. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFvd3Vvk-xU There are hundred just like this where cops ask for ID and then they back down when the people refuse to give their ID.
well I decided to bring it back to Ohio. besides half the people here are going to end up in Florida when they retire
And then they have to have a reason to stop you if you are driving. It's not like they can pull you over for no reason just to ask if you have a concealed weapon.
It's called the fourth amendment. Do you think this is nazi Germany's where police can stop you on the street and demand to see your papers? Ever heard of the term probable cause?
After you present the statute you believe authorizes police officers to conduct random, suspicionless searches of bystanders simply because they are present. And after nearly ten years since the incident, the matter is still no closer to being finally resolved by the courts. And yet the business is entered into a registry. Because that is exactly what was done in the state of Connecticut in the wake of the Sandy Hook incident, correct? It is your opinion. Correct. But your inability to exercise coherency when positing is your problem. At present the only distinguish characteristic separating you from the member Alakazam, is you ability to exercise proper grammar.
I provided the statute. Your turn. Sure it is. Every business is. Still not a gun registry. Sandy hook was mandated to perform background checks for,every transaction? Direct refutation. Lol, whatever helps you sleep.
Your friend was prohibited from owning a firearm but you didn't know that because you didn't run a background check. Once he has the gun your friend murders his wife and children with the gun you sold him and to avoid the death penalty he's willing to testify that you sold him the gun. You're busted if a jury believes your friend that's telling the truth when he testifies against you. If I had my way the background check wouldn't be mandatory but you would be guilty of a felony by transferring the gun to a prohibited person because you didn't run a background check and possibly an accessory to murder committed by your friend because you illegally furnished the firearm used in the murder.
How did I know what he was going to do with it? Generally, criminals have no credibility in court. Murders happen everyday. I don't remember any stories where prosecutors are actively looking for the gun source. I never owned the gun. This guy is just trying to save himself. My word against his. .... And he's a criminal with motivation to lie.
You didn't know but you should have known that it was illegal to transfer possession of the firearm to him based upon a (voluntary) background check that would have revealed that fact. Why would you choose to be a criminal by transferring ownership of a firearm to a prohibited person is the real question. Sometimes yes and sometimes no but the fact would remain that you committed a felony that ultimately lead to the murder of the man's wife and children. You might get away with the crime but you would still be complicit in the murder because you illegally transferred the weapon used in the murder. You're simply hoping that a jury would not believe the person telling the truth while believing your lies so that you won't be held accountable for violating the law just like almost every other criminal I'm aware of. The conviction or acquital has nothing whatsoever to do with whether your actions were criminal or that your actions directly contributed to the murder of the wife and children. Just because you might not go to prison does not absolve you of responsibility.
So according to you every gun shop or individual that transfers a gun to someone who commits murder, is complicit in the crime. Also, if I knew someone was prohibited from owning a firearm I wouldn't sell it to them.
The point of my simple transfer scenario was this..... UBCs cannot be enforced. Millions of transfers will take place similar to the scenario I provided. One of the arguments that legislators in congress before voting on the UBC proposal, was that they cannot be enforced without first implementing a national firearm database of owners.
