Ironically, that was one of the cases I was thinking about. Although in that case, arguably the LEO violated existing law as well in a couple respects. Refusing to return the weapon to its owner was one of these (the LEO insisted on giving it to an unverified 3rd party). His method of disarming the LTC carrier was another. Handling the weapon in a dangerous and negligent manner was a third (sweeping the third party with the muzzle).Abraham wrote:Soccerdad1995's concerns are real.
I'll mention again the recent liquor store / LEO security and his lack of LTC knowledge coupled with his wrong actions. A fine mess for LE.
Feeling a sense of peace that LEO's are finally as knowledgeable as they need be when it comes to civilians carrying is more than a bit suspect and yes, I'm a supporter of LE, but let's be realistic: There's a number of LEO's who's training is suspect in regard to LTCers. We who obey the law fear these folks and either their poor training or their their disregard of it...
Sadly, there's some chuckle-heads out there with badges, guns, and more than a little ignorance when it comes LTC carriers.
I would be more OK with this disarmament power if there were repercussions to LEO's who abused their power, by say disarming someone who is not even suspected of breaking any law, and is also completely calm and relaxed. Like the referenced instance, I'm thinking of someone OC'ing in a location that has no valid 30.7 signage, for example. The responding LEO really has no reason to even approach that individual unless there are other accusations such as threatening behavior, etc. Just inform the caller that they made a false police report and proceed accordingly with that person if the LEO feels the need to do anything.
I also find it particularly irritating that I as a private individual have a greater responsibility to know the law than the LEO's that have been granted powers such as arrest and confiscation of weapons. Ignorance of the law should not be an excuse for either of us, IMHO.