I wouldn't necessarily say dense, but there are times when you have misunderstood things, such as what the controlling authority was
for the Secret Service to have the power to declare restricted area in regards to a Presidential visit.
No, not at all; you chose to not answer my question. You deflected by quoting a penalty statute. That statute did not answer my question and you knew it didn't.
In this case, could you point out exactly (as in the OP's very words) where the stop was for anything other than speed in excess of posted speed limits?
M-Taliesin said in his first post: “He checked out my credentials and said I was going a bit over the speed limit. I apologized, and he let me off with a warning.”
Color of law asked: “Did he say the speed you were traveling at was unreasonable or not prudent under the conditions at the time he pulled you over?”
M-Taliesin responded to my question with this: “He did State the reason for the stop.”
The law requires that to be pulled over for being over the limit is that the overage is because it was either unreasonable or not prudent under the conditions.
The logical conclusion is the reason given for being pulled over for exceeding the posted limit was for some other reason which M-Taliesin chose not to say what it was or he was playing word games. Either way, he is being evasive.
From all the posts on this thread it is clear that his message is he is superior in his own mind in regards to his knowledge in how we are to handle traffic stops while carrying a gun.
It is my opinion this guy is infatuated with himself. There are hundreds of posts telling stories and the OP usually is accommodating to questions asked, even questions somewhat off topic.