If the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to retain the firearm. If the court finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual
No. It is pretty well established consent has to be knowing and voluntary not simply the absence of active objection.Huh? You are saying someone has to actually say they do not consent to a search or they do? That does not sound right.
Does'nt he have to articulate why he felt the need to take possession of the "deadly weapon" being lawfully carried absent any reason other than it's a deadly weapon?There really has been no firm ruling on this that I know of. Just because all questioning about the handgun stops when the permit is shown doesn't mean an LEO can't temporarily take possession of what is a deadly weapon.
There really has been no firm ruling on this that I know of. Just because all questioning about the handgun stops when the permit is shown doesn't mean an LEO can't temporarily take possession of what is a deadly weapon.
There really has been no firm ruling on this that I know of. Just because all questioning about the handgun stops when the permit is shown doesn't mean an LEO can't temporarily take possession of what is a deadly weapon.
Yeah, but all interpretations of what was meant by the law comes from rulings. It looks like many people are reading the same thing and interpreting it differently. You say cops can't according to the law; some say cops can according to the law. Until the courts say stop it's gonna keep on happening.did you know that not all our laws come from "rulings"? Some actually come from the legislature, where they are passed and signed by the governor. This is such a law. If he takes the firearm then he must articulate to a judge just why, in specifics, he felt there was danger to his life. That is the law.
Yeah, but all interpretations of what was meant by the law comes from rulings. It looks like many people are reading the same thing and interpreting it differently. You say cops can't according to the law; some say cops can according to the law. Until the courts say stop it's gonna keep on happening.
Yeah, but all interpretations of what was meant by the law comes from rulings. It looks like many people are reading the same thing and interpreting it differently. You say cops can't according to the law; some say cops can according to the law. Until the courts say stop it's gonna keep on happening.
Those of us who state that cops legally can't also tend to quote specific laws and court rulings. Those that say that cops can generally quote themselves and their feelings about what should be right.