Cam Edwards at Bearing Arms.

Lawmakers in Stamford, Connecticut are asking for the state legislature to impose a new restriction on legal gun owners: require them to produce their gun permit upon request by police.

The move is billed by supporters as a way to get “illegal guns off the street,” but some of the representatives sitting in the town’s legislature say the measure would be unconstitutional and could lead to big problems.

“Rep. J.R. McMullen, one of the nine representatives who voted against the resolution, said he couldn’t vote in favor of a resolution that asks the state legislature to consider making a law that he claims would be unconstitutional.

“I don’t know why we’re asking the state to do something that wastes their time, when there is so much other stuff that they failed to do over the last year and half that we should get them to focus on,” McMullen said.

McMullen was joined by Gloria DePina, Bradley Michelson, Susan Nabel, Selina Policar, Robert Roqueta, Bob Lion, Dennis Mahoney and Nina Sherwood in opposing the resolution.

Nabel said the reason she couldn’t support the resolution was she felt it could be used as a backdoor for police to racially profile city residents.

“I’m still of the feeling that this is too fragile a situation, too likely to lead to profiling and possibly puts police officers and the public around them in danger,” she said.

I happen to agree with both McMullen and Nabel in their objections. This is really a non-issue, and I have no doubt taht (sic) imposing the requirement on legal gun owners will lead to a disproportionate number of minorities being stopped and questioned by police.

[ … ]

So there’ve only been six cases in the past two years where police were called to check on a person carrying a gun, and only once did a gun owner refuse to voluntarily produce their permit (Connecticut requires all legal gun owners to have a permit, which also serves as their carry permit). Because one person didn’t submit to the police’s request (and acted lawfully in doing so), Curtis wants to change state law and allow police to view anyone exercising their Second Amendment rights as a suspected criminal?

Cam’s objection has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law.  Whether “disproportionate number of minorities being stopped and questioned by police” has to do with how the law is being implemented, not whether it can be implemented.  It’s an irrelevant objection.

This goes back to the issue of open carry in South Carolina we’ve recently discussed.  Regardless of the fact that open carriers are supposed to be permitted, South Carolina isn’t a stop and identify state.  Neither is Connecticut.

Even if there was such a statute, precedent forces LEOs to have reasonable suspicion beforehand for it to be a so-called “Terry Stop.”

This is the objection Cam should have pointed to, not whether blacks are going to be hit the hardest by this law.  The law is prima facie unconstitutional and will eventually be challenged in court.