CH> Not neccessarily.  Possesion of the weapon without more does
CH> not constitute a crime, unless of course it was determined
RW>Having a firearm in the passenger compartment of a car
  >is a crime in several states.  In some states a
  >misdemeanor in others I do believe it is a felony.
You are missing the point.  If by reason of a permit or law you are
authorized to carry that weapon, it's not a violation of law.
CH> to be stolen. Finding you in possession of a weapon, the
CH> first thing that an officer has to do is determine whether
CH> or not you have a permit or other  justification to have
RW>In some places (e.g.; D.C., Chicago) that isn't true.
  >The first thing he does is place you under arrest for
  >illegally carrying a weapon.
The Constitution is suspended in D.C., Chicago?  There are lot's of
people in those jurisdictions who are authorized to have firearms under 
those circumstances.  The officer STILL has to determine that there
is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed before he
can make a valid arrest.
CH> that weapon. He can do that by asking you if you have a
CH> permit or by a simple records check.  Probable cause, Rich.
RW>PC is set by the fact that an illegal act has been
  >committed.
How does he determine that an illegal act has been committed?  Merely
finding a weapon does not constitute probable cause in and of itself
unless you are stupid enough to withold the information that you are
authorized to possess/carry the weapon.  There was a case in 
Pennsylvania that was a case in point.  Officer stopped a vehicle,
observed a firearm.  Occupant did NOT have a permit for the weapon and
when asked by the officer if he had a CCW permit he refused to answer
invoking his fifth amendment right.  The officer WITHOUT checking state
records to determine if the man had a permit arrested him for a weapons
violation and seized the weapon.  The Supreme Court reversed the
conviction on the basis that since the officer had not checked to see
if the man had a permit; and since the defendant had remained silent
as was his right, the officer had no probable cause.
RW>Isn't the driver of the car responsible for what is in
  >the car?  If you find two pounds of cocaine in the
  >trunk you usually arrest the driver.
CH> Sometimes.  Sometimes the owner of the vehicle depending on
CH> the circumstances of the case.
RW>In very few cases would the driver, assuming that he is
  >the only adult in the car, not be arrested.
You are missing the point.  Merely finding a weapon or drugs in a car
in and of itself does not always constitute probable cause for arrest.
A gun does not, when it is not determined that the person does not have
a permit.  A pound of cocaine does not when it is being transported by
a person authorized by law to possess and transport same.
Now, keep in mind that the threshold for probable cause does not 
require proof beyond a doubt but DOES require a reasonable belief that
a crime has been committed and that the subject person committed it.
RW>So you are saying that you have never seen a case where
  >the case never should have been prosecuted, for what
  >ever reason, just because the DA wanted to make
  >political points?
Sure.......but that's the exception to the rule.
RW>HUH?  You have no problem with giving orders to shoot
  >someone even though he is posing no immediate threat?
I don't have a problem with your viewpoint on that particular issue.
CH> It went to federal court pursuant to federal statute.
RW>The feds only got interested when the state decided to
  >take action.  That is the part that should make you go
  >hum. . .
There is a federal law that says anytime a federal officer is the
subject of a prosecution for acts committed while performing his duty,
that officer has the right to have the case removed to a federal court.
CHARLES HUNTER
 * 1st 2.00 #9124 * Doing my part to preserve order in the universe
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0671
---------------