Loyalist Dave
Member
FWIW I do not hunt with worry of what a DNR person might think.
I follow the law and expect them to do the same .
That is a reasonable expectation, and in a Perfect World, that would be the norm.
It's the norm for me as I do my job, but you would be amazed, I think, at how much of an exception I am, and how much there is to know when it comes to laws, coupled with how much the average LEO does not know. Further, as long as they can say to a judge and a jury "I thought X....", as long as that group think it's "reasonable" then the officer is "held harmless". That's the Real World.
So where I am it's very easy to find an officer who does not know the difference between an AR-15 rifle, an AR-15 SBR, a pistol based on the AR-15 system, and a carbine or pistol with a blowback system that just LOOKS like an AR-15.
So when the officer seizes your firearm in the field because it looks like an AR-15 SBR, when it actually is a pistol based on the AR-15..., and cites you..., you are THEN depending on a bunch of people who could not get out of jury duty to agree with you, OR you're depending on a prosecutor and a judge (both of whom may have anti-gun bias) to agree with you...months later in court, and you having paid for a lawyer.
"Oh I'll just sue them for that", is the mantra I hear.
Well the prosecutor has immunity unless you show gross negligence, and knowing the intricacies of the AR platform and what is legal vs. what is not, is not such. So you'd have to sue the department and the LEO, and he will be given qualified immunity, again because the AR pistol is sooo similar to an AR rifle.
Good Luck.
LD