So then why the fierce opposition from LEOs to the amendment? After all, the amendment is just reiterating the current constraints of the Fourth Amendment. In which case, the amendment should not bother LEOs at all. Yet they're acting like they NEED the amendment stripped because they NEED to randomly stop and detain OC'ers without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.No, stripping the Huffines amendment does not "allow LEOs to randomly stop and search people . . ." U.S. constitutional law will control.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Clarification on proposed open carry law”
- Thu May 28, 2015 2:35 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Clarification on proposed open carry law
- Replies: 29
- Views: 6177
Re: Clarification on proposed open carry law
- Thu May 28, 2015 1:39 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Clarification on proposed open carry law
- Replies: 29
- Views: 6177
Re: Clarification on proposed open carry law
Looks like the only way OC will get passed now is if the bill is changed to allow LEOs to randomly stop and search people who are OC'ing, solely because they are OC'ing and with no reasonable suspicion the person is committing any crime.
I can't believe any state senator or congressman would support a law that allowed LEOs to stop a person solely because he is openly carrying and demand to see ID. Such a law is so clearly unconstitutional it almost defies logic to think that state representatives (most of whom are LAWYERS) could possibly think such a law would withstand a constitutional challenge.
I can't believe any state senator or congressman would support a law that allowed LEOs to stop a person solely because he is openly carrying and demand to see ID. Such a law is so clearly unconstitutional it almost defies logic to think that state representatives (most of whom are LAWYERS) could possibly think such a law would withstand a constitutional challenge.