TexasCHLforum.com

I think people look at governmental authority in a incorrect fashion. Many will say a cop can't do something or that a particular action is legal or illegal but for the most part that just isn't how it works. Police have the authority to disarm if they feel it's necessary. There are guidelines and policies for them to follow but like many decisions it is obviously a judgment call and the legality would for the most part only be decided in a court as a finder of fact. What we do is give an opinion on what we think the court would find but it isn't illegal unless found to be so. If an officer is eloquent and articulate what, for most officers, would be found to be unlawful may not be found to be so in other cases. If an officer could express why he felt a need to secure a firearm from an unoccupied vehical and a judge agrees then it's perfectly legal. The fact of the legality could only be found out in court and not in any other way. Now that doesn't mean he was acting in accordance with his dept training, policy, or anything else. These items are interesting discussion and are great to talk about but even if you are sure an officer is acting in a manner that would be found to be unlawful there is still no legal justification for non-compliance with the orders of said officer in situations like we are talking about here. Remedies should be pursued after the fact if the officer is in the wrong and keep in mind that even if the officer is incorrect because of the nature of the job if it is in good faith and there is no "damage" then there may be no real remedy either.