The police don’t have a case here.
> The police don’t have a case here.
No they dont but as former LEO I know why they pulled the guy over to question him which they are completely in their rights to do so f they observe an activity that could be construed as questionable or suspicious. His appearance and the appearance of the type weapon he was carrying. I will guarantee you that the officers wouldn’t have been so “cordial” if the soldier’s son and the camera weren’t present (witnesses). The soldier’s behavior was a little confrontational which they probably aren’t used to out in the neck of those woods.
Not sure about Texas, but in a lot of places you can’t carry a rifle ‘in the field’ without a hunting license. Did Grisham have a valid one?
Maybe the cops don’t but he does. After WWI people bought Mauser -type bolt-action rifles, like the Springfield. After WW II many bought semi-autos, like the Garand. This combat vet had an AR-type?
Send that deputy dawg hog to an NRA seminar and a disciplinary notation in his record.
If that’s acceptable to the vet-citizen.