C. D. Tavares writes: > On Sep 18, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Henry E Schaffer wrote: > >> Defendant was stopped for a minor traffic infraction. Reasoning that > >> "I have a gun!" might be unduly exciting to the officer, he handed > >> him his driver's license and his concealed carry license. > > > > Wouldn't this count as informing by communication in writing? > > I'm confident the prosecution will think to argue that having a > license for a gun doesn't guarantee you have a gun on you.
The purpose (obvious and perhaps in the legislative record) of the requirement to disclose bearing a handgun is to prevent the LEO from being surprised by someone being armed. Having a non-armed person claim to be armed would be an annoyance, but would not be an actual danger to the LEO. However, this discussion is irrelevant - the question in this case is whether the requirement to inform the LEO as to the presence of a handgun is accomplished by written communication instead of oral. --henry schaffer _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
