Peel’s Principles of Modern Law Enforcement

[UncleMike]

Bill is illustrating one of many, many illogical, unconstitutional, pointless, and victimless crimes that exist that could potentially ruin someone's life if enforced.

Discretion is what separates us from robots.

YUP!!
Some of the "Zero Tolerance" incidents in schools are a good example of enforcement gone wild.
Suspending a child because he pointed his finger as though it were a gun is just plain insanity!
Mike

 

[hornadylnl]

YUP!!
Some of the "Zero Tolerance" incidents in schools are a good example of enforcement gone wild.
Suspending a child because he pointed his finger as though it were a gun is just plain insanity!
Mike

But Zero Tolerance is the rule so the school administrations must enforce them. Walk a mile in their shoes.

 

[UncleMike]

But Zero Tolerance is the rule so the school administrations must enforce them. Walk a mile in their shoes.

I've stated my position in my previous posts in this thread.
Mike

 

[kabrown]

I got to wondering the same thing, but didn't want to sidetrack too much. With both people having an LTCH, and the operator remaining in the vehicle, it wouldn't be hard to mount a defense that the LTCH holder behind the wheel, and thus remaining as operator, met the requirements of the exception permitting a dropoff/pickup on school property. The law does not require that the operator have physical possession of the firearm.

Edit: Reading fundamental! A quick re-read shows the lady in the car wasn't the vehicle operator, which the law DOES expressly require! Missed it my first time reading through, also.

I still don't see how this would result in a felony. There is no evidence that the passenger knew the firearm was under the seat, therefore she could not have had possession. The operator of the vehicle was bringing someone to and picking someone up from school, and he was the one with possession. I still don't see where the problem is.

 

[Joe Williams]

I still don't see how this would result in a felony. There is no evidence that the passenger knew the firearm was under the seat, therefore she could not have had possession. The operator of the vehicle was bringing someone to and picking someone up from school, and he was the one with possession. I still don't see where the problem is.

He stopped being the "operator" when he got out from behind the wheel. When he got out of the car, he committed a felony. The passenger having her LTCH does no good, since the law specifically states that only the "operator" may carry to drop off and pick up passengers. In fact, the strict reading of the law would tell you that your passenger may not have his/her gun with them when you are dropping off or picking up someone on school grounds. So, if she had her gun with her, two felonies for the price of one.

 

[hornadylnl]

He stopped being the "operator" when he got out from behind the wheel. When he got out of the car, he committed a felony. The passenger having her LTCH does no good, since the law specifically states that only the "operator" may carry to drop off and pick up passengers. In fact, the strict reading of the law would tell you that your passenger may not have his/her gun with them when you are dropping off or picking up someone on school grounds. So, if she had her gun with her, two felonies for the price of one.

And that law is as stupid as having an AR pistol and AR rifle and interchanging the uppers.

 

[dross]

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance,"

This is a larger point than this particular thread, but when you must retain the services of lawyers just to understand how to interact with the government, the spirit of our founding is being violated.

The exception to the law in question was put in there so people didn't have to be effectively disarmed every day when they went to drop off their kids and pick them up on the way to and from work. If there's a technicality about stepping out of the vehicle (not even armed, but having the weapon still in the vehicle) that only those in the legal system understand, then effectively the exception is severely compromised. Most citizens are not that versed in the law and its subtle manifestations.

Even though I disagreed with the idea that cops must refuse to enforce laws they deem unconstitutional, I do agree they should have broad judgment to determine that the spirit of the law was adhered to, even if the letter was not. Especially if the spirit of the law was followed from a desire to follow the law, and the letter was violated through ignorance. That is EXACTLY the kind of judgment we should EXPECT from our enforcers. And I say that, sensitive to someone else's post that the administrators are more of the problem than the street cop. I believe that entirely.

We should allow our police to exercise their judgment. We should also hold them to an extremely high standard.

 

[Joe Williams]

And that law is as stupid as having an AR pistol and AR rifle and interchanging the uppers.

I'm not addressing the wisdom, or lack of same, of the law. Merely it's existence and what it says.