The cop got it right. A bad guy lost his firearm and it turns out he was a convicted felon. If the bad guy would have had it open carry, would the officer acted the same way? Who knows. The bottom line is the guy was a convicted felon and he had no right to carry at all.
None of us were there a the time the stop and frisk was made. (Terry vs Ohio) We don't know all the circumstances and we don't know what else the Officer knew or saw that is not reported in this piece.
I see this decision as supporting the LEO and protecting future LEO's as they do their job. I completely disagree with the sentence that says " Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights". Everyday we get bombarded by people, courts, the media and lawyers about respecting the rights of Americans and we were expected to protect and honor those rights.
Some folks have lost their 2nd Amendment rights through their own bad behavior. It's the LEO's job to sort that out, sometimes in difficult circumstances and on very short notice. This decision by the courts says that the 10th Circuit supports the LEO's making those difficult decisions.
kwg
