Correct me if I'm misreading it, Doug, but it's not that the person "was directed to stand up" as much as it was the fact that they were directed to do anything. It's the fact that government is force applied to the citizenry that makes the difference.
The removal of the law requiring us to ask permission to exercise a right would be the most sweeping way to remove that force insofar as the RKBA, and the best way, IMHO, to avoid this whole issue. T. Lex, would a ruling in Pinner that the sight of a handgun is not, by itself, RAS for Terry or other legal entanglements be something the antis could reasonably point to as a lack of necessity for Constitutional Carry?
Blessings,
Bill
The removal of the law requiring us to ask permission to exercise a right would be the most sweeping way to remove that force insofar as the RKBA, and the best way, IMHO, to avoid this whole issue. T. Lex, would a ruling in Pinner that the sight of a handgun is not, by itself, RAS for Terry or other legal entanglements be something the antis could reasonably point to as a lack of necessity for Constitutional Carry?
Blessings,
Bill
This ^^^ is what I find so fascinating about the law. That the simple fact that a person was directed to stand up carries a great deal of weight in a case regarding our right to keep & bear arms.
Thank you for the play by play and the nice poetry opening!
Regards and Merry Christmas,
Doug