Just because you can does not mean you should.
I'm probably about to risk your opinion of me changing, though, when I point out that you seem to have ignored every point in my post except that some of the states I named allow officers to steal, even temporarily, the property of citizens without any suspicion of a crime. Again, were the shoe on the other foot, you'd be charging them with felonies. Have we truly sunk so low as to set the bar high for one person performing an act, and low enough for others that they may do that same thing solely based on a feeling of a lack of safety?
I named Harless. He's only one, admittedly egregious example of a pervasive tendency for LEOs to consider themselves above those upon whom they enforce the law.
The bottom line question, I think, is: What is your job? Is it to protect the lives, property, and rights of the citizens who employ you, or is it toon those in preference of your own feelings of safety? (not a false dichotomy; I'm sure you and others have been placed in exactly that position in your careers, one or the other/can't have both)
Oh, and AZ does not require a permit to CC. They're Constitutional Carry.They do still issue a permit (I have one) but it is for reciprocity, not permission within the state from the state to carry, and I'm not sure what point you were making regarding the population of some states being low. Rights are not dependent upon numbers in a census, although admittedly, when you have larger populations in a small area, you do tend to see them begin to lean Democrat/anti-gun politically. They actually seem to start to believe the rhetoric that it's the gun, rather than the person, who commits the crime. Additionally, that a state imposes a training hurdle to lawfully exercise a right is immaterial to this discussion. In any event, with permitless (Constitutional) carry, that hurdle goes away.
I can say categorically and specifically that I will not be a threat to an officer at the roadside, whether in a city or traveling an Interstate through open fields in some rural location. I will, however, be armed in both places. Since in a city, you have a greater likelihood of backup in reasonably close proximity, would it not make more sense and be more rights-conscious to call for backup rather than take property from someone unnecessarily? Further, let's just say that in that Constitutional Carry setting, I DO still have my LTCH. Presuming you somehow knew I was armed (how you would know that is the biggest mystery) would you still disarm me? (if anyone who may lawfully possess a handgun can carry it, you still, as today, would only know about the ones who have the LTCH and/or are carrying openly, neither of whom, you've admitted, is the threat you disarm routinely)
Blessings,
Bill
Not a chance. You remain civil in your disagreements, and I can appreciate being taken to task.
Anyways, I'm wondering if you're fully understanding my point as to under what circumstances, within society, that I would alter my opinion from going from not needing to disarm a person due to the existence of a LTCH vs disarming everybody due to the abolishment of the permit/license system (because would you still need a LTCH in a constitutional carry situation?).
So far, it seems that your biggest complaint with the idea is the "bad cop" belief. It further appears your of the belief that these disarmings would be the result of a encounter of a voluntary police interaction. No, I have not implied that all. I am of the belief, that under the current system, officers should not random stop people solely for carrying a firearm, not should (for the most part) disarm a driver simply for possessing a firearm during a traffic stop. However, in a constitutional carry society where LE has made contact with an armed person, or discovered to be armed, due to that person being in a situation where a LE contact is required, it seems/is (IMO) appropriate to disarm the parties involved.
I'm not one to use the catch-all of officer safety as a crutch, but in constitutional carry society, I would expect the numbers of improper persons with guns to explode. That's a big deal to any officer. And then lacking the immediate tools (such as the presentation of, what would be abolished, permit/ltch system), upon initial contact; and officer can no longer "play the odds" that theyre dealing with a "good guy" as many do upon being presented a permit/ltch.
