Refusing to hand over firearm at a traffic stop - MO - Page 11
Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 177

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

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    Actually "dude" you have NO EFFING CLUE WHAT I AM GOING TO DO....
    No, I don't know what you might do in that situation but I do have a pretty good idea what the cops are going to do and you aren't going to like it

    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    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.....
    Please cite relevant stautes and case law to support your position
    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

  2.   
  3. #102
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Here is a good question that BluesStringer has reminded me of about "must inform" laws.... A bad guy/felon/whatever you want to call him is asked by a cop if he is armed, he has a RIGHT to NOT incriminate himself... Yet, a "law abiding" armed ccw citizen has no such "Right" by "law".....

    (either he reminded me of it, or I just said the same thing he did in some different words)

  4. #103
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    From the US dept of Justice website ....

    Civil Rights Division Home Page


    DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
    Summary:

    Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

    For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

    The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

    TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

  5. #104
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

    Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

    “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

    “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

    “When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

    “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

    “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

    “Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

    “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

    “Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

    As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

  6. #105
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    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
    Why do you insist on trying to turn this into a theoretical discussion? I'm not talking theory, I'm talking about clear, unambiguous rights that you and I were both born with, written in both of our native language so that we should be discussing from the same level of understanding of the reality of their meanings. Only someone wishing to lessen the meaning of the words defining those rights would speak in theoretical terms to make some point that supports the usurpation of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    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 Treo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    ...and if we do, and we invoke that right, would a cop be justified in* considering 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.
    So we're in agreement. Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

    Blues

    *Edited to remove Treo from the question.
    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. #106
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

    Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

    “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

    “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

    “When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

    “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

    “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

    “Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

    “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

    “Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

    As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)
    A great argument, IF the OP was stopped illegally. Otherwise, a moot point. You either recognize the cops authority to perform a traffic stop, and that restriction of your rights, or you don't. I'll stick with my ideas and you can have yours, but here's a piece of advice:
    -
    You can fight every fight not worried about the consequences, you can fight the just the ones you are sure you will win, or you can fight the fights WORTH winning. You must decide which category your fight falls into.

  8. #107
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,418
    Quote Originally Posted by whodat2710 View Post
    A great argument, IF the OP was stopped illegally. Otherwise, a moot point. You either recognize the cops authority to perform a traffic stop, and that restriction of your rights, or you don't.
    Not really responsive to what Axe said. This was the exchange that led to the list he cited and that you replied to:

    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    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.....
    Please cite relevant stautes and case law to support your position
    While Axe and Treo both may have engaged in a little thread-drift in that exchange, clearly the list of citations wasn't intended to challenge the notion that cops have the authority to pull people over for traffic infractions. As such, it was a great argument, and 100% responsive to what Treo asked for, and further, is not in need of any caveats about the specifics of the OP's story.

    Quote Originally Posted by whodat2710 View Post
    I'll stick with my ideas and you can have yours, but here's a piece of advice:
    -
    You can fight every fight not worried about the consequences, you can fight the just the ones you are sure you will win, or you can fight the fights WORTH winning. You must decide which category your fight falls into.
    This is somewhat confusing to me. Clearly (to me at least), any fight for your God-given rights is WORTH winning. I have a wider definition of the word "fight" than I perceive Axe to have promulgated thus far, but the bottom line remains the same, all fights for rights are worth winning. To my way of thinking, the truly principled fights are the ones waged regardless of the consequences, motivated only by the righteousness of the cause being fought for. Any fight that you engage in which you're sure you'll win, is no fight at all - it's a fixed outcome. I don't get the impression that Axe is speaking of such a fight at all.

    Blues

    ETA: The above having been said, "choose you battles wisely" is an axiom I believe wholeheartedly in, and if that was the gist of what you were trying to say, I think we agree more than we disagree.
    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...

  9. 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)?

    Blues
    In the situation you describe above, Blues, it is my opinion that the officer has lost all authority that he may have had to disarm the subject, which is EXACTLY the reason why I will not disclose my CPL or presence of a firearm unless I am required to by law. Here is why, in the situation you describe, I feel that the officer has lost the authority to disarm the subject:

    1. The first condition is that the officer has established, by reasonable means, the identity of the subject that is stopped. Such as the presentation of a driver's license that a reasonable officer would accept as identifying the subject. AND the officer has received verification from a government source that the subject they have stopped and identified possess a valid firearms permit/license.

    2. Terry v. Ohio:
    Terry v. Ohio

    "We merely hold today that, where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him."

    3. It is my humble opinion that receiving information from a government source that the subject stopped and identified has a valid permit for a firearm would be grounds to a reasonable person to dispel a reasonable fear for his own and others safety. ESPECIALLY if the officer has already approched the subject, retrieved their driver's license, and returned to their vehicle in order to call in the license information without any mention or concern for a firearm during that initial contact. I have never had an officer ask about the presence of firearms/weapons during any traffic stop.

    4. That is why I won't disclose my CPL. If the officer finds out from the government that I have a CPL and the officer has identified me, that information should remove their authority to disarm me rather than provide the "reasonable suspicion" that would be the justification to disarm me.

    5. Now.... if I show them my CPL first and inform them I am armed after they have lawfully detained me.... the officer has no idea if that CPL is valid or not, and it is my humble opinion that the US Supreme Court says they have the authority to disarm me for the duration of the lawful detainment (traffic stop) and perform the searches allowed under Terry until such time as they can verify that my CPL is valid.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  10. #109
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    The mere presence of a firearm does NOT constitute a danger to anyone... Hence, the cops requesting of possession of such firearms MUST have another articulable reason for doing so.. like the subject is acting/talking (body language also) very aggressively or some such thing... A holstered firearm in no way constitutes ANY danger to the cop... ESPECIALLY if HE behaves himself and doesnt try trampling on any of my rights (one of which is the right to bear arms...)which brings us right back to those pesky Title 18 section 242..... AND Elk vs US.....

    I still see 100% that the cops, WITHOUT having a valid (reasonable man/articulable) reason to confiscate or hold my firearm for the duration of the "stop" CANNOT LEGALLY do so WITHOUT my consent... Just like when I refuse to give them permission to search my vehicle, If they then DO search it WITHOUT A VALID ARTICULABE REASON to do so, they will be breaking the "law"..... One "Right" is the exact same as the other, no difference whatsoever... 2nd or 4th.... same thing... No valid reason, then it is not lawful......

    My 2nd Amendment Rights do not magically go away when some thug with a badge wants them to.......

  11. #110
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,418
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    In the situation you describe above, Blues, it is my opinion that the officer has lost all authority that he may have had to disarm the subject, which is EXACTLY the reason why I will not disclose my CPL or presence of a firearm unless I am required to by law. Here is why, in the situation you describe, I feel that the officer has lost the authority to disarm the subject:

    1. The first condition is that the officer has established, by reasonable means, the identity of the subject that is stopped. Such as the presentation of a driver's license that a reasonable officer would accept as identifying the subject. AND the officer has received verification from a government source that the subject they have stopped and identified possess a valid firearms permit/license.

    2. Terry v. Ohio:
    Terry v. Ohio

    "We merely hold today that, where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him."

    3. It is my humble opinion that receiving information from a government source that the subject stopped and identified has a valid permit for a firearm would be grounds to a reasonable person to dispel a reasonable fear for his own and others safety. ESPECIALLY if the officer has already approched the subject, retrieved their driver's license, and returned to their vehicle in order to call in the license information without any mention or concern for a firearm during that initial contact. I have never had an officer ask about the presence of firearms/weapons during any traffic stop.

    4. That is why I won't disclose my CPL. If the officer finds out from the government that I have a CPL and the officer has identified me, that information should remove their authority to disarm me rather than provide the "reasonable suspicion" that would be the justification to disarm me.

    5. Now.... if I show them my CPL first and inform them I am armed after they have lawfully detained me.... the officer has no idea if that CPL is valid or not, and it is my humble opinion that the US Supreme Court says they have the authority to disarm me for the duration of the lawful detainment (traffic stop) and perform the searches allowed under Terry until such time as they can verify that my CPL is valid.
    Thanks for the well-reasoned (as usual) comment, Navy. I don't disagree with anything you've said about the state of affairs these days, but I still do disagree with the legal validity of searching someone (or their vehicle) with nothing but "for the officer's safety" as a 4th Amendment-compliant justification. As I alluded to earlier, SCOTUS is as subject to error, or worse, to nefarious intentions, that still amount to usurpations, as any other group of human beings. The ObamaCare ruling is a good example, as is Roe v Wade, as are the plethora of rulings that modify and/or weaken BoR protections without any constitutional authority to do same. In fact, such rulings are a blatant violation of the authority the Constitution grants them. As such, SCOTUS has become an enemy of the Constitution, not an unmovable, incorruptible protector of it that they were intended to be. A usurper is a usurper is a usurper as far as I'm concerned, whether they wear a suit and tie, a badge and costume, or a black robe.

    But I do agree that your analysis accurately states what is routinely accepted as "legal" to the vast majority of Americans who don't bother themselves with thinking about such things. (I'm not suggesting that you, Navy, are one of those people, just that unthinking obedience to the state is a rampant affliction these days.)

    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...

Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... 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