A minor technicality that you would have to get by a jury of 12, and which doesn't apply if the establishment sells any kind of alcoholic beverage.
The undercover cop could have responded differently and escalated it dramatically.
Sort of like a criminal, eh? Providing further evidence of irresponsibility on his part, and justifying the need for the property owner to defend himself.
If CCW holders start seeing possession itself as a threat then the anti’s are just a short generation away from a full ban.
Twisted logic. The stats still stand: When private citizens or police pull guns for defense (with or without CCW) the police are six times more likely to shoot the wrong (innocent) person.
Hardly an acceptable reason to disarm any citizen.
“A minor technicality that you would have to get by a jury of 12, and which doesn’t apply if the establishment sells any kind of alcoholic beverage.”
Its not a minor technicality. Its a public place and they can’t charge you with trespass until you have refused to leave. There is as and armed trespass; one is usually a felony.
“Sort of like a criminal, eh? Providing further evidence of irresponsibility on his part, and justifying the need for the property owner to defend himself.”
No not like a criminal; like any person would do if they were attacked without provocation. He could have thought it was being attacked and responded like cops sometimes do. IMO, it was reckless but again, I wasn’t there.
“When private citizens or police pull guns for defense (with or without CCW) the police are six times more likely to shoot the wrong (innocent) person.”
Thought it was 11 times?
“Hardly an acceptable reason to disarm any citizen.”
Thats my point. He didn’t know the guy was a cop, a criminal, or just another CCW holder. The mere possession of a firearm does not make him a criminal. Certainly be away, perhaps put your hand on your weapon. Merely seeing the tip of a holster is slight justification IMO. How many criminals wear holsters anyway?