|
Accoster, I think your response brings me back to the crux of the question. If I am not committing any type of crime just by being at the range with my legally owned weapon, why would any LEO be investigating the situation at all. Would you investigate every car in the parking lot of the range just to be sure that one of them wasn't stolen? There is no probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. Isn't there some sort of necessity for probable cause in a case such as this (exempting BATF agents who are afforded the right by law.) Yes, I understand that most LEOs don't know the law or deal with these weapons on a regular basis, but it sort of scares me that you would then put the "burden of proof" on the citizen, rather than on the LEO to go and actually know the law he is accusing you of breaking. Just food for thought, I have all the respect in the world for the boys in blue, but it reeks of Big Brother to me.
|