I was speculating, but it reads like I was stating fact. Sorry about that.ELB wrote:If that's true, that's a lousy reason. And exactly the reason the specification should not be in the law. It criminalizes something that in itself is not criminal, and restricts people who are not criminals. It's like saying tattoos are PC for gangbangers, or a NRA ball cap is PC for checking someone for guns at a basketball game.gljjt wrote:If you don't have a holster, and a handgun is visible, LE has PC to make a stop. Gangbanger.ELB wrote:Why was this ever put in there in the first place? (Is this some consequence of the OCT/OCTC antics?)
Search found 2 matches
Return to “HB 910 (OC) Committee debate - Now”
- Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:53 am
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB 910 (OC) Committee debate - Now
- Replies: 276
- Views: 42293
Re: HB 910 (OC) Committee debate - Now
- Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:29 am
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB 910 (OC) Committee debate - Now
- Replies: 276
- Views: 42293
Re: HB 910 (OC) Committee debate - Now
If you don't have a holster, and a handgun is visible, LE has PC to make a stop. Gangbanger.ELB wrote:Why was this ever put in there in the first place? (Is this some consequence of the OCT/OCTC antics?)