re: #26 Fairly Sure I’m Still Obdicut

Stop and frisk is looking for a variety of things. If the policeman stops someone he thinks has a CCW, and the person shows they don’t have a gun, then it’s over and they’re on their way. This is a bad analogy.

So, to be clear, you now support a law, as long as its evenly applied, that would allow a police officer to stop someone with a concealed weapon and verify that the weapon is permitted and legal?

Why? Please explain why you have ‘mixed feelings’. And if you’re going to bring the idea of unfairness in you can literally argue against every law in existence; it’s a red herring.

Every law needs to pass the fairness test, agree or disagree? And in any case I mean the term by a reasonable measure. My mixed feelings are about how easily that kind of law can be used to discourage rather than enforce. Kinda like stop and frisk. When laws are applied unfairly they can make headlines at the ACLU. Sometimes when they turn out to have consequences along racial lines. Or economic.

So in your view a bulge under a coat is justification for a policeman to stop you and see if it’s a gun. I’d really support some stronger evidence that that something, anything is amiss.

So, to be clear, you now support a law, as long as its evenly applied, that would allow a police officer to stop someone with a concealed weapon and verify that the weapon is permitted and legal?
Read more at http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/310300_Washington_D.C._Handgun_Carry_#xc6m1bBgCSW0bqI3.99

Show me the statute (proposed or real) and the jurisdiction. then we can cheerfully discuss those pesky details.