That's an interesting distinction. I guess it goes to the fact that the officer is ordering you to do something illegal, for you, but the officer has no way of knowing that he/she is ordering you to do something illegal. An analogy might be to a LEO ordering a convicted sex offender to walk toward them when the LEO is within the restricted distance of a school. Or a LEO ordering someone to move within X distance of someone else who has a restraining order against them. So in general, a person following that order would not be doing anything illegal, but unbeknownst to the LEO they actually are ordering that specific person to do something which would be illegal for that person to do. IANAL, and have no idea whether the person so ordered could then legally refuse to follow the order.Teamless wrote:As I see it, if an officer orders you to leave your vehicle, that is a legal(lawful) order, not an illegal order in-itself.Soccerdad1995 wrote:
IANAL, but it seems to me that if a LEO orders you to do something illegal, then you should not be charged with that crime. Otherwise, we always have a very reasonable excuse for refusing to follow LEO orders that we think could possibly be illegal.
Its the fact that YOU are carrying on your body and if you follow their lawful order you are then committing an illegal act.
I would find it much simpler to be able to comply with their lawful request, without having that worry, than have to explain "Im sorry Mr. Police officer, I have a gun in my pocket (or on my body in some holster (hopefully!)) and have them wonder (1) If they are an LTC, why didn't they give me their license or (2)If they dont have an LTC, I wonder why they are carrying on body....
But aside from the academic consideration, I maintain that as a practical matter, it is much better all around to just conceal your weapon off body while driving. It's more comfortable, and easier to access the weapon. Plus you avoid potential misunderstandings with LEO's.