Refusing to hand over firearm at a traffic stop - MO - Page 10
Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 177

Thread: Refusing to hand over firearm at a traffic stop - MO

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sepra Peratus/Arkansas
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlesMorrison View Post
    Man, I think you guys with the permits have to go through a lot of crap just to be able to defend yourself!
    Ya have to know this.... Ya have to know that.....
    Y'all need to get that stuff changed to a Constitutional Carry state and bury that other crap!


    Sent from behind enemy lines.
    We think we have (AR), just have to test it in court to find out if it's true.
    Last edited by gejoslin; 06-21-2013 at 01:58 PM. Reason: clarification
    ~Responsible people who understand that their personal protection is up to them, provide themselves with protection. Those that don't have only themselves to blame.~Proud NRA ~SAF~GoA Member~

  2.   
  3. #92
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,899
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    1) he still would have not had the authority to disarm him.
    This is the only part of the post I question. Apparently no one has found a link to any Missouri law that grants specific authority but I believe NLCDR has posted a link to a SCOTUS decision that does give the cop the authority to disarm you for his safety.
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
    http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

  4. #93
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    This is the only part of the post I question. Apparently no one has found a link to any Missouri law that grants specific authority but I believe NLCDR has posted a link to a SCOTUS decision that does give the cop the authority to disarm you for his safety.
    Again treo, you FAIL to comprehend the entire "ruling/decision" which you seem to so be gleeful about... You know, like the part where the cop NEEDS an actual ARTICULABLE REASON that he believes the person is DANGEROUS BEFOREhe can "legally" disarm you for his "safety".....

  5. #94
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    Again treo, you FAIL to comprehend the entire "ruling/decision" which you seem to so be gleeful about... You know, like the part where the cop NEEDS an actual ARTICULABLE REASON that he believes the person is DANGEROUS BEFOREhe can "legally" disarm you for his "safety".....
    Once a law case has been ruled on by the supreme court (ie. Terry v Ohio), that is not the end. It is used as a basis to argue other cases, and sometimes in the other cases more precedent is set. I already posted it, but I'll toss it up here again (and notice it mentions a Terry stop, as well as a few other precedents used to determine this one):
    -
    US v. Neff, 300 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2002)-... a Terry stop does not become unreasonable just because police officers use handcuffs on a subject or place him on the ground. See Perdue, 8 F.3d at 1463. Further, the "use of guns in connection with a stop is permissible where the police reasonably believe the weapons are necessary for their protection." "Since police officers should not be required to take unnecessary risks in performing their duties, they are `authorized to take such steps as [are] reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety and to maintain the status quo during the course of [a Terry] stop.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 235, 105 S.Ct. 675, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985)).
    -
    In simple terms, if the cop can ARTICULATE that he felt it was necessary to secure the firearm until the person was positively identified and verified there were no warrants etc. he is authorized to do so...LEGALLY! I am not saying I agree with the law, because it would be very easy for the cop to articulate that he didn't feel "safe" while equally matched or outgunned by the person he pulled over. The fact that I don't agree with it does not mean it isn't legal.
    -
    Case Law 4 Cops-Stop & Frisk or "Terry Stop" Case Law has links to all cases in full text.

  6. #95
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    This is the only part of the post I question. Apparently no one has found a link to any Missouri law that grants specific authority but I believe NLCDR has posted a link to a SCOTUS decision that does give the cop the authority to disarm you for his safety.
    First, SCOTUS (or anyone else) doesn't have any constitutional authority to override our rights as articulated in the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights without first providing the full measure of due process as defined therein.

    Second, you're looking to Missouri state law to determine law enforcement's extra-constitutional authorities, when you should be looking to the Constitution and Bill of Rights themselves:

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    4) Cops don't have "rights," they are granted authorities. The overwhelming majority of their authorities flow from the words in the Bill of Rights. Any law, any SCOTUS ruling, any action that they might take while on the job must all comport with the restrictions placed on them by that document, not by some sh!thouse, usurping interpretation that a legislature, judge or cop on the beat deems "reasonable and necessary." The only time a cop can legitimately invoke their own rights is when they're accused of abusing and violating their legal authority, and themselves, become criminal defendants.
    So let's view it from a variation of the OP's initial story. He is armed, is permission-slipped, but doesn't volunteer either of those two pieces of information. The cop runs his license and sees that he is a permission-slip holder. The cop intends to invoke the Terry stop rule referred to earlier in the thread "for his own safety." In other words, he first has to ask the subject if he is armed, and if the subject is, his articulable reason for taking his firearm for the duration of the stop is that it was "for his own safety."

    So what happens when the subject says, "I don't answer questions outside the presence of my attorney" when asked if he is armed? Can the invocation of one right (5th Amendment) be the "probable cause" to search just because he happens to be in a list of law-abiding citizens who have complied with an already constitutionally-questionable law (having to get permission-slipped in the first place)?

    If MO's laws aren't compliant with the easily understandable concept of probable cause, then looking to their laws to answer the question of their authority is a complete waste of time. And if "articulable reason" is something less restrictive than real, honest-to-goodness probable cause, then I don't care what SCOTUS says, it's a usurpation, and any Justice or lower-level judge or cop or prosecutor who puts forth a case on that flimsy of a standard of due process is a traitor to the Constitution, period.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  7. #96
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    Again treo, you FAIL to comprehend the entire "ruling/decision" which you seem to so be gleeful about... You know, like the part where the cop NEEDS an actual ARTICULABLE REASON that he believes the person is DANGEROUS BEFOREhe can "legally" disarm you for his "safety".....
    I’m not the one who doesn’t get it dude. The cop doesn’t need reasonable suspicion based on clearly articuable facts that you are dangerous all he needs is need reasonable suspicion based on clearly articuable facts that have committed or are about to commit a crime. (I.E. whatever he pulled you over for)

    The cop had a legitimate reason to stop the OP. The OP volunteered the information that he was armed to the cop. As posted by whodat:

    US v. Neff, 300 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2002)-... a Terry stop does not become unreasonable just because police officers use handcuffs on a subject or place him on the ground. See Perdue, 8 F.3d at 1463. Further, the "use of guns in connection with a stop is permissible where the police reasonably believe the weapons are necessary for their protection." "Since police officers should not be required to take unnecessary risks in performing their duties, they are `authorized to take such steps as [are] reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety and to maintain the status quo during the course of [a Terry] stop.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 235, 105 S.Ct. 675, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985)).
    There is case law that supports the cop’s legal authority to take you out of the car and put you in handcuffs for “his safety”.
    You may not like it but you are going to comply it’s just a matter of how many charges and how much back up the cop needs to get you to that point.
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
    http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

  8. #97
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,899
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    First, SCOTUS (or anyone else) doesn't have any constitutional authority to override our rights as articulated in the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights without first providing the full measure of due process as defined therein.
    OK, I don’t disagree in theory. My point however is that in practice you are better off to comply on the side of the road and then go back and take the whole thing to court than you are to start a pissing contest that you will lose with the cop at the scene .

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Second, you're looking to Missouri state law to determine law enforcement's extra-constitutional authorities, when you should be looking to the Constitution and Bill of Rights themselves:
    No, I am looking for a specific Missouri state law because I continually advocate knowing the laws of the state you are in and I’d like to know for myself what the law says. Assuming the law exists at all you can argue the Constitutionality of it with the cop while he’s cuffing you on the side of the road for resisting arrest (and I’ll bet my ass that charge sticks)

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    So let's view it from a variation of the OP's initial story. He is armed, is permission-slipped, but doesn't volunteer either of those two pieces of information. The cop runs his license and sees that he is a permission-slip holder. The cop intends to invoke the Terry stop rule referred to earlier in the thread "for his own safety." In other words, he first has to ask the subject if he is armed, and if the subject is, his articulable reason for taking his firearm for the duration of the stop is that it was "for his own safety."

    So what happens when the subject says, "I don't answer questions outside the presence of my attorney" when asked if he is armed? Can the invocation of one right (5th Amendment) be the "probable cause" to search just because he happens to be in a list of law-abiding citizens who have complied with an already constitutionally-questionable law (having to get permission-slipped in the first place)?

    If MO's laws aren't compliant with the easily understandable concept of probable cause, then looking to their laws to answer the question of their authority is a complete waste of time. And if "articulable reason" is something less restrictive than real, honest-to-goodness probable cause, then I don't care what SCOTUS says, it's a usurpation, and any Justice or lower-level judge or cop or prosecutor who puts forth a case on that flimsy of a standard of due process is a traitor to the Constitution, period.

    Blues
    Again, nothing here that I disagree with in theory but again, in the words of "The People's Court's" Doug Llewellyn my best advice is “Don’t take the law into your own hands, you take ‘em to court”
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
    http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

  9. #98
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    Again, nothing here that I disagree with in theory but again, in the words of "The People's Court's" Doug Llewellyn my best advice is “Don’t take the law into your own hands, you take ‘em to court”
    Thanks for the tip. I'm more of a Madison/Jefferson kinda guy than a Llewellyn guy though.

    ETA: And you didn't answer my non-theoretical question: Do we have the right to refuse to answer questions without an attorney present, and if we do, and we invoke that right, would you (or would a cop be justified) consider that either an "articulable reason" or real probable cause to search your vehicle simply because your name is on a list of law-abiding citizens?
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  10. #99
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    There is case law that supports the cop’s legal authority to take you out of the car and put you in handcuffs for “his safety”.
    You may not like it but you are going to comply it’s just a matter of how many charges and how much back up the cop needs to get you to that point. Actually "dude" you have NO EFFING CLUE WHAT I AM GOING TO DO....
    Also, you STILL dont "get it"...... The cop has to have a REASON that he MUST be able to give you (articulate) as to WHY he "thinks" you are a danger to him BEFORE he can "put you in cuffs for his safety" Otherwise, you can resist with up to and including lethal force under "false arrest" Again, just because he wants to is NOT a "LEGAL" reason... IF he cannot articulate a VALID reason why he is doing it, he is in great danger of violating the persons rights "under color of law".... I think you might need to go read some on that subject BEFORE you attempt any more advice giving here.....

    If I have done NOTHING illegal, and a cop confronts me and cannot tell me a specific reason WHY he wants to arrest or disarm me, Then I must assume that he means me harm for nefarious reasons, and I will be forced to defend myself... NO-ONE is allowed to lay a hand on me or my family without a valid reason or they WILL suffer greatly for it....

  11. #100
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,899
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Thanks for the tip. I'm more of a Madison/Jefferson kinda guy than a Llewellyn guy though.
    In theory anyway

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    ETA: And you didn't answer my non-theoretical question: Do we have the right to refuse to answer questions without an attorney present,
    Yes


    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    and if we do, and we invoke that right, would you ( added by Treo:what I would or wouldn't do is irrelevant since I am a private citizen) (or would a cop be justified) consider that either an "articulable reason" or real probable cause to search your vehicle simply because your name is on a list of law-abiding citizens?
    No and there is ample case law to support that.
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
    http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast