[RB]

This will probably raise a few eyebrows and that IS my intent, however, my intent is not to disrespect LEO's in any way, shape, form.

The LEO was very professional, but a few points about legal and illegal need to be made. The LEO should not have touched the weapon. For one, he "detained" and conducted an "illegal search and seizure" at the moment he disarmed the lawfully abiding citizen [LAC] The LEO had no probable cause that a crime was committed by the LAC. The LEO received a call from a "concerned citizen" and although the call was responded to, it was not responded to in the eyes of legality, but was responded to very professionally. There is a difference. Your rights can be violated by a very professional LEO just like they can by the big burly cop that demands a Terry Stop is completely legal because he says so. The point is if you don't know your rights, research them.

The LAC stated that he did not consent to a search. The LEO conducted the search anyway and broke the law, albeit very professionally. Had the LAC truly known the law about OC, he would've stood his ground about non-consent and requested the LEO's supervisor or an FTO. The LEO could plainly see that this was an advocate OC and not an ugly encounter so "officer safety" was not an issue. He also could have stepped in front of the LAC, checked that the gun was not full auto, and that it was chambered in .22 easily. The LEO chose to disarm illegally.

What many who don't carry and fail to realize is that the LAC DID NOTHING WRONG. I KNOW I KNOW..... and I agree, walking down the street sporting what appears to be an evil black gun OC slung is probably not too smart, but it IS NOT ILLEGAL.

As for the stop, professional, yes, well, if you consider about half of the illegal stop professional. Depends on which half you like I suppose.

RTKBA

2c