The difference is huge. I looked at Oklahoma's law and it doesn't actually prohibit law enforcement, but it does specify when asking for a license is allowed. It's an inclusionary list - that is, if it's not listed, it's not legal. And it's normal stuff, "...during the course of any arrest, detainment, or routine traffic stop" asking for the license is allowed. It makes sense. Other OC states have similar verbiage, some of them are exclusionary - IE - you LEOs can't stop and detain just due to the presence of a firearm.gdanaher wrote:.... I agree that verbage specifying that the OC folks not be hastled by police. I don't know how this would flow though. If an officer 'feels' a problem, he would need to check for licensing anyway.
Any officer can ask for anything he wants at any time, that's true... But we're talking about compelling the production of identification. That shouldn't be allowed if you're doing something that's legal.
Look at the 30.06 law. We all know that these signs are unenforceable on city/county property, but we see them there frequently. Why? Because there is no "you can't do that" section in the law. They're posting them because they often have a misunderstanding or an agenda and there simply isn't any penalty for doing so.
Without this language, it's a gray area and would need to be worked out through case law. Based on what I see with long guns - Texas society is tolerant of stops based solely on possession of a legal firearm. Grisham is a horrible example, but largely he was stopped simply because he was carrying. I'm not willing to trade more 2nd amendment for more 4th amendment, personally.