DNR to hunters: Hand over your guns on demand

[kevin9]

Ok, a few things:

1. The most dangerous thing you can do in your life is frighten a cop on a traffic stop. Requiring you to inform the officer that you're armed substantially reduces the possibility of him spotting an undeclared poorly concealed weapon and a situation becoming unnecessarily dangerous.

2. Say he's stopping you for a possible DUI and you're armed but think you can talk your way out of it. You declare the gun and he removes it as he gives you the field sobriety test. You fail and because you're drunk and perhaps also really stupid, you decide to fight/run. Having the gun no longer in your possession makes it drastically less likely that anyone is going to get shot.

Hell, most of the time the cops I've dealt with never gave me a second glance when they knew I was armed.

Shit happens, cops make mistakes and so do the people they stop. In a potentially confrontational situation, taking a gun out of the picture probably makes things safer for all concerned.

All in all, I should have said citizen safety, since I think it more likely the cop is going to accidentally shoot you because you scared him than the other way 'round. Maybe cops should be less trigger happy, but seriously, traffic stops are really dangerous and things can escalate very quickly from "here's my license" to someone getting hurt.

Is this whole argument not predicated on the assumption that an armed, law-abiding citizen is more dangerous to an LEO (and themselves) than an unarmed law-abiding citizen?

It what way does such a law compel one who wishes to do harm to an LEO to announce their status or surrender their arms?

 

[TonyD]

Ok, a few things:

1. The most dangerous thing you can do in your life is frighten a cop on a traffic stop. Requiring you to inform the officer that you're armed substantially reduces the possibility of him spotting an undeclared poorly concealed weapon and a situation becoming unnecessarily dangerous.

2. Say he's stopping you for a possible DUI and you're armed but think you can talk your way out of it. You declare the gun and he removes it as he gives you the field sobriety test. You fail and because you're drunk and perhaps also really stupid, you decide to fight/run. Having the gun no longer in your possession makes it drastically less likely that anyone is going to get shot.

Hell, most of the time the cops I've dealt with never gave me a second glance when they knew I was armed.

Shit happens, cops make mistakes and so do the people they stop. In a potentially confrontational situation, taking a gun out of the picture probably makes things safer for all concerned.

All in all, I should have said citizen safety, since I think it more likely the cop is going to accidentally shoot you because you scared him than the other way 'round. Maybe cops should be less trigger happy, but seriously, traffic stops are really dangerous and things can escalate very quickly from "here's my license" to someone getting hurt.

Your analogy fails when you enter Reasonable Articulable Suspiscion into the equation of consuming alcohol. Maybe they should stop making so many traffic stops. I firmly feel DUI roadblocks and random drivers license checks go against the very spirit of the constitution and do nothing statistically to reduce crime and eats up huge amounts of man hours and funds. But, I digress.

 

[Bill Nance]

It what way does such a law compel one who wishes to do harm to an LEO to announce their status or surrender their arms?

It doesn't. It protects YOU from the cop, and gives the cop legal cover for temporarily disarming you if you're being an ass, which is the first sign of a situation escalating. He DOES have to give it back though.

Once again, my experience with CCW is not in freakin "Ihategunsachusetts" but in the past, I've made rather a point when stopped for a traffic violation (ok, only happened twice, and no ticket was issued either time) that I was armed because I felt safer doing so.

The reaction both times was: "Thanks for letting me know," with no drama at all.

I've just seen too many cases where an otherwise routine thing has escalated into a major deal (and every time it was the citizen who escalated, not the cop) that I can see the wisdom in removing the firearm from the situation temporarily.

I'm sure everyone on this forum is meek and mild and never intentionally antagonizes a cop or refuses to comply with a lawful order, but that's not the case for everyone. Again, removing the object that would give you the ability to do something stupid that would make the cop react by shooting your ass seems reasonable. If it becomes a big issue in Ohio, that's up to the people there to make the change.

I don't think the default attitude should be: "The cops aren't to be trusted with authority or discretion to protect their and your safety because most of the time they will abuse it."

That's not true and if it were, then why have cops in the first place?

I have seen abuse of authority, but I've seen it very rarely. On the other hand I've seen hundreds of interactions where the cops took more shit than I would stand still for and STILL acted calmly and professionally.

 

[clinotus]

I've just seen too many cases where an otherwise routine thing has escalated into a major deal (and every time it was the citizen who escalated, not the cop) that I can see the wisdom in removing the firearm from the situation temporarily.

I'm sure everyone on this forum is meek and mild and never intentionally antagonizes a cop or refuses to comply with a lawful order, but that's not the case for everyone. Again, removing the object that would give you the ability to do something stupid that would make the cop react by shooting your ass seems reasonable. If it becomes a big issue in Ohio, that's up to the people there to make the change.

Having done most of my shooting outdoors, I tend to not trust anyone I haven't shot with with a firearm near me, dependent of course, on the circumstances. Of course if pressed and I have to I'll surrender my firearm, but the chances of a non-shooter officer sweeping me with my own weapon, being unfamiliar with my weapon and handling my weapon do give me pause. I see that differs for you and your actual experiences.

I dont think its unreasonable for people to not want to hand over their firearms and yet at the same time there are occasions where it must be done. But disarming someone just because you think that they might do something, is no respect of the law or that persons rights, its the exact opposite. If that were really the case, why dont they taze traffic stopees first, then while the stopee is on the ground or slumped over the steering column, perform a frisk search and secure them to the wheel with zip ties?

Doesn't make much sense either.

 

[Admin]

I think it's unreasonable.

"Hi officer, what can I do for you?"
"Give me your gun."
"Why?"
"I don't need a reason. Give me your gun."
"No."
"You're under arrest. You have the right to remain silent..."

+1

 

[JonJ]

It's a gross violation of the 4th.

+1
Short, sweet and to the point.

 

[TonyD]

It doesn't. It protects YOU from the cop, and gives the cop legal cover for temporarily disarming you if you're being an ass, which is the first sign of a situation escalating. He DOES have to give it back though.

Once again, my experience with CCW is not in freakin "Ihategunsachusetts" but in the past, I've made rather a point when stopped for a traffic violation (ok, only happened twice, and no ticket was issued either time) that I was armed because I felt safer doing so.

The reaction both times was: "Thanks for letting me know," with no drama at all.

I've just seen too many cases where an otherwise routine thing has escalated into a major deal (and every time it was the citizen who escalated, not the cop) that I can see the wisdom in removing the firearm from the situation temporarily.

I'm sure everyone on this forum is meek and mild and never intentionally antagonizes a cop or refuses to comply with a lawful order, but that's not the case for everyone. Again, removing the object that would give you the ability to do something stupid that would make the cop react by shooting your ass seems reasonable. If it becomes a big issue in Ohio, that's up to the people there to make the change.

I don't think the default attitude should be: "The cops aren't to be trusted with authority or discretion to protect their and your safety because most of the time they will abuse it."

That's not true and if it were, then why have cops in the first place?

I have seen abuse of authority, but I've seen it very rarely. On the other hand I've seen hundreds of interactions where the cops took more shit than I would stand still for and STILL acted calmly and professionally.

Bill, I understand your point and where you're coming from. However, I respectfully disagree with you.

Two quick points:

1) You are assuming that all LEO's will react as the two you had interaction with. I contend they won't. There are many examples of the opposite. What's the ratio of bad experiences versus good? Who knows?

2) If you want to inform the LEO that you have a firearm and would rather turn it over to him during your encounter that's your decision and I have no problem with you deciding what's best for you. I do have a problem with someone else telling me what's best for me.

In Georgia, there is no requirement to inform any LEO if you're carrying. There is no requirement to tell the LEO if he asks you directly as long as there is no RAS. Now, common sense has play into it also, such as carrying it open and having to reach past it to get your wallet. It should never be allowed to summarily disarm a legal law abiding citizen, in my view, and I used to be LEO.

 

[mark056]

I think many agree with you on this point, although it might be stated more along the lines of putting the DNR bureaucrat in his place. One might also argue for a law or regulation requiring competent training for DNR and other government agents on dealing with law-abiding public citizens in a legal and constructive manner.
So the DNR claims. That does not make it so. In fact one might suggest that there is considerable legal weight behind the perspective that unless the law explicitly grants agents of the government the right to confiscate personal property in specific circumstances that they do NOT have the legal right to do so.
Agreed. The point of debate is what are those limits. You seem to want those limits to include the "right" for LEOs to temporary confiscate certain private property without probably cause or reasonable suspicion as Ohio law apparently does. Tony, and many others including myself, would argue for the opposite, that private property cannot be confiscated, even temporarily, without probably cause or reasonable suspicion, as being more in line with the language and intent of the highest law of the land.
No, Ohio law does not do what Tony suggests. Here's Jose's post (my emphasis added):
As one can see it Ohio law DOES allow LEOs to temporarily confiscate guns without reasonable cause or suspicion. Many of us would disagree with such a law and find it odious. Even more odious is the idea that such actions can be justified by regulation without resort to law.

Kevin,

You have made a very reasoned, polite, and a not in-your-face rebuttal to my post for which I am extremely appreciative.

Many see even the temporary relinquishment of a firearm to a LEO to be some kind of egregious violation of the 4A. However, firearms are routinely placed into the temporary custody of Law Enforcement all of the time. This happens when entering certain places such as courthouses, Federal Buildings and secure areas. I have witnessed this or participated in this myself. I have seen LEO's secure their weapons when entering certain areas, so I don't see how a LEO temporarily taking control of a firearm is in any way, shape or form an unlawful seizure. In defense of law enforcement, I will say that if a police officer sees someone lawfully armed and has reason to stop and interview that person, it is not unreasonable to ask that person to temporarily relinquish their firearm. The cop doesn't know if you are a good guy or a bad guy and before you say well..."If I'm walking down the street a la doobie with my trusty six shooter at my side, and it's perfectly legal to open carry it's none of that cop's business." Well in a perfect world that may be so. But the truth of the matter, depending on circumstances, time of day and general enviornment, that behavior is going to be questioned because in all probability the person with the gun is a POOP (person out of place) with an OOP (object out of place). There ar towns and places in Arizona where one can carry a firearm all day and all night without raising an eyebrow, but try that in Phoenix. Now this may surprise Tony, but I actually lived in Georgia. I'd like to try to open carry or carry a rifle down Peachtree Street in Atlanta without drawing attention to myself to the Atlanta Police.

When I go to a gun show (and this has been my experience with gun shows literally from coast to coast) I have to declare whether or not I am carrying or not. I must temporarily relinquish my firearm to the officer or security guard at the door who inspects it and bands it before returning it to me.

Put yourself on the other side of the coin, for a moment. Frankly, I think that there are a number of people who have issues with authority, and they project that in their movements, body language and speech inflection. This is going to attract the attention of the Cops. Now maybe you don't like that statement, or maybe you think it is wrong, but that is the way it is in the real world.

Now I don't think that many people who open carry a weapon are bad guys in an urban situation, but it is different for a game warden out in the field. First not everyone is hunting. In many rural areas, clandestine marijuana farms, and drug labs can be found. People engaged in these illicit activities are frequently armed. It is perfectly understanable that a LEO is going to be very wary when encountering any armed person in the field. Firefights between hunters (in and out of season) and game wardens have to known to have happened as well. Some decry officer safety, but that is what it really is, officer safety.

So many incidents are situational dependent. No one deplores the militarization of the police or the unbridled power of the police when improperly used, more than I do. I have said since I have been a member of this forum that the police are not your friends. They have a job to do and until they figure out how you fit into the picture, they are going to be wary and guarded.

I do not think that those who see the issue differently than me are going to change their minds and I can readily understand concerns about civil liberties, but sometimes those civil liberties have to be tempered by a little common sense.

Mark L.

 

[kevin9]

It doesn't.

Then it is a useless feel-good law.

It protects YOU from the cop

I fail to see how forcing a law-abiding citizen to surrender their lawfully owned private property provides any protection for said citizen, let alone the LEO. It's almost as if the LEO is expected to pose a threat to said citizens.

and gives the cop legal cover for temporarily disarming you if you're being an ass,

Once someone becomes "an ass" all bets are off. Reasonable suspicion and threat then exists under current laws. Confiscate away. What the laws like this do is force a citizen to surrender their property before they become anything on the presumption that will become "an ass".

which is the first sign of a situation escalating. He DOES have to give it back though.

Thank you sir, may I have another.

Once again, my experience with CCW is not in freakin "Ihategunsachusetts" but in the past, I've made rather a point when stopped for a traffic violation (ok, only happened twice, and no ticket was issued either time) that I was armed because I felt safer doing so.

The reaction both times was: "Thanks for letting me know," with no drama at all.

Please tell me you are not advocating that everyone should be required to do something because you have chosen to do so without any issues.

I've just seen too many cases where an otherwise routine thing has escalated into a major deal (and every time it was the citizen who escalated, not the cop) that I can see the wisdom in removing the firearm from the situation temporarily.

Again you're making a presumption that legally armed citizens are by definition a greater danger to themselves and to LEOs. Just become people who are a danger to LEOs may often carry guns or because guns if misused pose a larger danger to LEOs does not mean that people who carry guns are automatically a greater to danger to LEOs.

I'm sure everyone on this forum is meek and mild and never intentionally antagonizes a cop or refuses to comply with a lawful order, but that's not the case for everyone. Again, removing the object that would give you the ability to do something stupid that would make the cop react by shooting your ass seems reasonable.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. This is anthropomorphic demonization of the inanimate object.

I don't think the default attitude should be: "The cops aren't to be trusted with authority or discretion to protect their and your safety because most of the time they will abuse it."

False attribution digression. Nothing has been said in this discussion to the effect that LEOs are not trusted. The issue is the other way around. Such a law presumes that gun-carrying citizens are not to be trusted not vica-versa.

I have seen abuse of authority, but I've seen it very rarely. On the other hand I've seen hundreds of interactions where the cops took more shit than I would stand still for and STILL acted calmly and professionally.

Agreed, but that really has nothing to do with the core of this discussion. Just because LEOs take much abuse in their job does not make it right to give up our rights so that they feel safer.

 

[TonyD]

I do not think that those who see the issue differently than me are going to change their minds and I can readily understand concerns about civil liberties, but sometimes those civil liberties have to be tempered by a little common sense.

Mark L.

It's this type of mentality that needs to be changed. And I mean no offense to you. The mentality by the populace, and LEO, should be that it's no big deal to see the majority of people walking down Peachtree legally carrying firearms and Atlanta wouldn't be the shit hole it is. It's all a manufactured perception that a "person with a gun" is evil and a wrong-doer. Our courts have ruled that the mere presence of a firearm, in a non-restricted area, is not probable cause to detain or disarm in the absence of RAS. It should be that way everywhere. It doesn't make you a person out of place, or an object of place.

Did you read the article I linked?

Our biggest promlem is the amount of restricted areas. I do not need a license to buy, own, or carry upon my self a firearm in my home, my car, my place of business, or any private property without the objection of the owner. Because the Public Gathering wording is so ambiguious, with the exception of the gas station and grocery store, a license doesn't give you many other places to carry.

 

[kevin9]

Kevin,

You have made a very reasoned, polite, and a not in-your-face rebuttal to my post for which I am extremely appreciative.

Many see even the temporary relinquishment of a firearm to a LEO to be some kind of egregious violation of the 4A. However, firearms are routinely placed into the temporary custody of Law Enforcement all of the time. This happens when entering certain places such as courthouses, Federal Buildings and secure areas. I have witnessed this or participated in this myself.

Frankly I do have somewhat an issue with disarming citizens as a matter of course in so many areas, but that is a different discussion.

Even assuming one does assert the the example you give is acceptable, I would suggest that it does not apply. The key difference is that all the areas you mention are public areas where people come to with some degree of choice and prior decision. The key issue in the original post is surrendering on private property without reasonable cause. That's a very different case, even more so because the general case presented involves LEOs initiating contact with the law-abiding citizens versus the citizen coming to the LEO or reasonable suspicion being present.

Vehicles do pose an interesting case regarding their legal status as private property, but even there I tend to come down more on the side of someone being on their property while within their vehicle versus on public property.

I have seen LEO's secure their weapons when entering certain areas, so I don't see how a LEO temporarily taking control of a firearm is in any way, shape or form an unlawful seizure.

Sorry, this sentence makes no logical sense to me. Because LEOs give up their guns in some places others should be compelled to give up possession to LEOs elsewhere?

In defense of law enforcement, I will say that if a police officer sees someone lawfully armed and has reason to stop and interview that person, it is not unreasonable to ask that person to temporarily relinquish their firearm.

I claim it IS unreasonable as it is based on a prior presumption of guilt.

The cop doesn't know if you are a good guy or a bad guy and before you say well..."If I'm walking down the street a la doobie with my trusty six shooter at my side, and it's perfectly legal to open carry it's none of that cop's business." Well in a perfect world that may be so. But the truth of the matter, depending on circumstances, time of day and general enviornment, that behavior is going to be questioned because in all probability the person with the gun is a POOP (person out of place) with an OOP (object out of place).

The fundamental problem is that assumption that simply carrying a gun makes one a person out of place, or that guns in and of themselves are objects out of place.

There ar towns and places in Arizona where one can carry a firearm all day and all night without raising an eyebrow, but try that in Phoenix. Now this may surprise Tony, but I actually lived in Georgia. I'd like to try to open carry or carry a rifle down Peachtree Street in Atlanta without drawing attention to myself to the Atlanta Police.

Just because many bad guys carry guns in those places does not logically mean that everyone who carries guns there, or elsewhere, is bad.

When I go to a gun show (and this has been my experience with gun shows literally from coast to coast) I have to declare whether or not I am carrying or not. I must temporarily relinquish my firearm to the officer or security guard at the door who inspects it and bands it before returning it to me.

False example. That is private property. Requiring such surrendering is the right of the property owner. It's their right to choose if and who to hire to carry out that rule on their property. Again, the original case is not private property owners requiring the surrender of arms but government agents enforcing such surrender regardless the property owner's desires.

Put yourself on the other side of the coin, for a moment. Frankly, I think that there are a number of people who have issues with authority, and they project that in their movements, body language and speech inflection. This is going to attract the attention of the Cops. Now maybe you don't like that statement, or maybe you think it is wrong, but that is the way it is in the real world.

Acting suspicious when dealing with suspicious acting people is entirely to be expected. Again though, someone carrying a gun IAW their rights should not automatically render them suspicious, particularly on private property.

Now I don't think that many people who open carry a weapon are bad guys in an urban situation, but it is different for a game warden out in the field. First not everyone is hunting. In many rural areas, clandestine marijuana farms, and drug labs can be found. People engaged in these illicit activities are frequently armed. It is perfectly understanable that a LEO is going to be very wary when encountering any armed person in the field. Firefights between hunters (in and out of season) and game wardens have to known to have happened as well. Some decry officer safety, but that is what it really is, officer safety.

I'm all for officers being safe, but not at the expense of the fundamental rights that make this country what it is. I wish as much time and energy was expending in teaching and training LEOs on how to deal with the public safely and effectively, including lawfully armed public citizens, as is expended in attempting to legislate safety.

I do not think that those who see the issue differently than me are going to change their minds and I can readily understand concerns about civil liberties, but sometimes those civil liberties have to be tempered by a little common sense.

Were that it were that simple. The problem is there is little common sense to much of what is being discussed. Most "safety legislation" has become punishing the deeds of the many for the misdeeds of the few.

 

[mark056]

Frankly I do have somewhat an issue with disarming citizens as a matter of course in so many areas, but that is a different discussion.

Even assuming one does assert the the example you give is acceptable, I would suggest that it does not apply. The key difference is that all the areas you mention are public areas where people come to with some degree of choice and prior decision. The key issue in the original post is surrendering on private property without reasonable cause. That's a very different case, even more so because the general case presented involves LEOs initiating contact with the law-abiding citizens versus the citizen coming to the LEO or reasonable suspicion being present.

Vehicles do pose an interesting case regarding their legal status as private property, but even there I tend to come down more on the side of someone being on their property while within their vehicle versus on public property.Sorry, this sentence makes no logical sense to me. Because LEOs give up their guns in some places others should be compelled to give up possession to LEOs elsewhere?
I claim it IS unreasonable as it is based on a prior presumption of guilt.The fundamental problem is that assumption that simply carrying a gun makes one a person out of place, or that guns in and of themselves are objects out of place. Just because many bad guys carry guns in those places does not logically mean that everyone who carries guns there, or elsewhere, is bad.
False example. That is private property. Requiring such surrendering is the right of the property owner. It's their right to choose if and who to hire to carry out that rule on their property. Again, the original case is not private property owners requiring the surrender of arms but government agents enforcing such surrender regardless the property owner's desires.Acting suspicious when dealing with suspicious acting people is entirely to be expected. Again though, someone carrying a gun IAW their rights should not automatically render them suspicious, particularly on private property.
I'm all for officers being safe, but not at the expense of the fundamental rights that make this country what it is. I wish as much time and energy was expending in teaching and training LEOs on how to deal with the public safely and effectively, including lawfully armed public citizens, as is expended in attempting to legislate safety.
Were that it were that simple. The problem is there is little common sense to much of what is being discussed. Most "safety legislation" has become punishing the deeds of the many for the misdeeds of the few.

Look Kevin9, we are never going to see eye to eye on this, but I thank you for taking the time to answer my post.

I totally agree with your position regarding private property. However the thrust of the discussion turned from the original post. Many gun shows are not held on private property but at county and municipal fairgrounds, auditoriums and such. At least that has been my experience in Colorado, Arizona and California.

I think you are harkening back to a time and place in this country that is sadly gone forever, and that you also, without trying to be indelicate, have a certain naivete with regard to people and objects out of place. You simply don't get the contextual content in how I mean it, and I am at loggerheads at being more cogent in my explanation. Unfortunately too, I never said that a lot of bad people open carried in Arizona, quite the contrary. An armed society is a polite society...no argument there either. Also my concept of common sense is not Joe Beiden's or Chuck Schumer's it is rather like the idea that one "doesn't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater."

Anyway, we will agree to disagree and let's just leave it at that.

Mark L.

 

[TomH]

It's a gross violation of the 4th.

Yeah, you're right. Wasn't thinking that one through I guess. And Eddiecoyle, I agree its not reasonable at all.

 

[Bill Nance]

All I can say in defense of the Ohio law (now that this thread has totally derailed form the original DNR stuff, which I agree is total BS)

Put yourself in the place of the cop pulling over a speeder.

You have no idea who the person is, whether he may be Mister Upright Citizen, have warrants out, have just robbed a liquor store, be high on pcp etc. All you know is they were speeding.

You approach the vehicle and ask for license and registration. As the person reaches for their registration, you see a clear imprint of a firearm on their person.

What would you do?

I for one, would unsnap the button/retention on my holster, place my hand on my weapon and instruct said person to very very slowly produce a CCW, and if there was the slightest hesitation to comply, the stop would instantly become a felony stop, whcih is inherently dangerous for the subject of that stop.

A law that insists that you declare you are armed means that doesn't need to happen at all. If you declare, he knows you're armed and can reasonably presumed you are armed lawfully. The retention never need come off, the hand never need go near his gun.

If that law further insists that upon demand, you surrender the weapon during the course of the interview, I don't find this to be some egregious taking under Amendment 5, nor unreasonable search under Amendment 4, since he can, at his discretion, pull you out and frisk you anyway, as well as disarm you after the pat-down.

This is established law for officer safety.

So to me, the easier and safer route for all concerned is to simply declare. Again, I all I can go by is my experience. I don't think that in 99% of the cases (and how often DO you get pulled over btw? because I've got pulled over exactly four times in the last 22 years) the officer will thank you for letting them know and that will be the end of it.

Don't have anything to add to this. If you disagree, you disagree. Diffrent strokes etc.

 

[z0mbi]

So I gotta ask, how does this law make it safer for LEOs?

It doesn't, because the guy with the idea of possibly using that gun against the LEO will not give his gun to the LEO in the first place. If anything, I would say it just hastens the escalation process and possibly results overall in more instances of gunfire exchange than otherwise because it puts the person on the spot and only gives him one option: Fight now, because you won't be able to later.

 

[Jose]

Is this whole argument not predicated on the assumption that an armed, law-abiding citizen is more dangerous to an LEO (and themselves) than an unarmed law-abiding citizen?

It what way does such a law compel one who wishes to do harm to an LEO to announce their status or surrender their arms?

I don't agree with Ohio law in this regard (or in most regards concerning concealed weapons). I was merely reporting fact.

As a practical matter, anyone who is going to willingly shoot a cop is not going to care that it is required by law that he inform the officer that he has a firearm concealed.

 

[kevin9]

I don't agree with Ohio law in this regard (or in most regards concerning concealed weapons). I was merely reporting fact.

I understand and appreciate that, and I agree with you.

As a practical matter, anyone who is going to willingly shoot a cop is not going to care that it is required by law that he inform the officer that he has a firearm concealed.

and

It doesn't, because the guy with the idea of possibly using that gun against the LEO will not give his gun to the LEO in the first place. If anything, I would say it just hastens the escalation process and possibly results overall in more instances of gunfire exchange than otherwise because it puts the person on the spot and only gives him one option: Fight now, because you won't be able to later.

Exactly my point, although it seems to be lost on some who seem to think it's not realistic.

 

[TomH]

As a practical matter, anyone who is going to willingly shoot a cop is not going to care that it is required by law that he inform the officer that he has a firearm concealed.

That is what makes laws like this useless. I can't wrap my mind around why anyone would think otherwise.