Refusing to hand over firearm at a traffic stop - MO - Page 18
Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 8161718
Results 171 to 177 of 177

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

  1. #171
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Blues, you are reading too much into what I said. Dorner and the Boston bombing are two great examples, and I agree. Those were instances that were localized and (though very wrong) intended to be temporary to solve a specific crisis (Dorner more-so than Boston).
    -
    I am talking more about a sweeping federal campaign where the locals are supposed to enforce them. In any instance there will be power hungry zealots and cowards that don't want to make a moral stand. I (possibly wrongly) beleive that if Obama said "all guns are banned, confiscate them" or "Conservatives are evil, lock them up and shoot them if they resist" your average soldier or cop would have trouble morally following that order. And as far as a "fair" fight, I was talking about how they are more heavily armed and armored than most of the population, and that by finding those (like the pro-2A Sherriffs) that would take America's side rather than the Regime's side we even the odds by having the same arsenal.
    -
    I am just advocating, I don't know, networking with the cop in your neighborhood, meeting the local sherriff and asking where he stands. Knowing who you can count on and who to avoid. Write your Governor - They are the ones that will hold the State power against the Feds. If there's a fight are they willing? Will they form a militia and close the borders to the stormtroopers?
    -
    I am not stating answers either, just ideas. One thing I know for sure, if you automatically assume a LEO is on the wrong team, and treat them as such when SHTF, it won't matter what either of you beleive. It would be good to know beforehand.

  2.   
  3. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by magnesium View Post
    My CCW class instructor advised us to inform the officer also. After reading this topic for a few minutes it sounds like a really bad idea.
    Not necessarily a bad thing to do. You'll see people on here post stories in the news about when notifying does turn into a "bad" situation, but most of the time it won't.

    I just think it's irrelevant. If you get pulled over for speeding, no need to start talking about your gun. Should the cop pat you down for weapons, then it is time to notify.

  4. #173
    If he didn't ask, I would not tell. Now days you create more problems by offering information that is not asked.
    My 2 cents
    NRA Life Member

  5. #174
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek Mi
    Posts
    1,853

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Deserteagle View Post
    Not necessarily a bad thing to do. You'll see people on here post stories in the news about when notifying does turn into a "bad" situation, but most of the time it won't.

    I just think it's irrelevant. If you get pulled over for speeding, no need to start talking about your gun. Should the cop pat you down for weapons, then it is time to notify.
    Caveat!! depending on state, and each law is different (well duh) In my state (MI)for example failure to disclose if you are carrying and are pulled over you could lose your CPL... Yes your MI CPL will come up on their computer....

    So be wise, know the laws of the state you are in, obey the speed laws, and avoid the situation in the first!!
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century
    "Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out!" Father John Corapi.

  6. #175
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    We have two recent events to draw from that suggest to me (at least) that finding those trustworthy enough to unite with is going to be next to impossible. In both cases, one man triggered vast areas of this country to be held under virtual martial law for extended periods of time. One was the Chris Dorner manhunt, and the other the Boston Marathon bombers case. Would you agree that the cops' actions were blatantly unconstitutional in both of those cases? My analysis points to multiple constitutional violations, but I'm focusing mostly on the multitudes of searches that ensued in both cases with zero probable cause. So were all the cops that participated in the thousands of illegal searches during those two events following morally deficient orders? If they followed unconstitutional orders in conducting those thousands of searches, would that, in and of itself, constitute following morally deficient orders? Out of the many hundreds of cops who participated in days worth of unconstitutional searches between those two coast-to-coast events, have you heard of one single cop who questioned their illegal orders, much less refused to obey them?

    Keeping focused on those two events, I find it ironic that you speak of a "fair fight" against tyranny, considering that both jurisdictions control guns with as much restriction as they can get away with from an already completely usurped federal government. While the level of restriction in those jurisdictions may be in the minority among the states, they are certainly not unique, and maybe more significant, they are no longer a minority when you consider only population centers throughout the country. The states with the highest density of population also make it hardest to acquire and/or own weapons, and as the compliance with illegal searches in the two examples I'm using demonstrates, there are very few, if any, thinking about a fair fight, or any kind of fight, with the authority figures forcing them out of their homes and businesses and vehicles while searching for only one man who, in both cases, were not even in the perimeter of the area being searched in the case of Boston, and literally more than a hundred miles away from the farthest outside perimeter in the case of Dorner. And that perimeter in the case of the Dorner manhunt encompassed four counties, one of them, San Bernadino County, being the largest county in the entire Union. Maybe a bit off-track here, but the point is, in all that area, with all the unconstitutional searches going on in population centers comprised of at least 10 million citizens (I'm giving a very conservative estimate there), I have yet to hear a single report of resistance to any of it.

    The plain fact is there is neither the means nor the will to resist tyranny in this country, proven by the fact that it is already here and people are voting for Senators and paying their income taxes as though they are the most constitutional duties they are obligated to perform.

    Don't demand answers of me for what we're supposed to do about it. I have no clue. There is no legitimate system left from which to work within, and no revolution to restore or recreate one that can be successful with so few who even acknowledge the legal and moral bankruptcy we are currently living under. I just review the state of affairs and tell the truth about what I see. I leave it to others to decide for themselves if there's anything left in this country worth fighting for. So far, they have answered with their inaction a resounding and deafening, "NO!"

    Blues
    Regarding Boston, would we consider a search unconstitutional if the search ignores incidental evidence of another crime? For example, ATF/FBI/LE wants to search the house for the bomber and sees evidence of drug use but ignores-it. The evidence couldn't be used without having violated their rights anyway, but if the illegal search finds evidence of a crime that is not charged, was anyone's right actually violated? Where is the line on something like this?
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  7. #176
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,418
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Regarding Boston, would we consider a search unconstitutional if the search ignores incidental evidence of another crime? For example, ATF/FBI/LE wants to search the house for the bomber and sees evidence of drug use but ignores-it. The evidence couldn't be used without having violated their rights anyway, but if the illegal search finds evidence of a crime that is not charged, was anyone's right actually violated? Where is the line on something like this?
    The Fourth Amendment:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


    I only bolded one word to show that seizures are not needed to be a violation of the 4th Amendment. An unreasonable search is a violation independent of any seizures that may or may not take place.

    That said, the whole amendment could be bolded for emphasis of violations in the Boston fishing-expedition as far as I can tell. No warrant was issued to begin with, much less any that "particularly" described anything having to do with what they were ostensibly looking for.

    Being "secure in their persons, houses..." means that unless the government has met the criteria that gives them authority to search persons and houses, then the persons have the right to defend against such intrusions, whether it be defense by word or deed. My main point in the post you replied to is that there is no evidence of the will of anybody to resist such violations with word or deed in the cases of So Cal and Boston.

    I'm curious why you only asked my opinion about Boston though. Do you think there's any significant difference in if/how the 4th Amendment was violated between the two events?

    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...

  8. #177
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    The Fourth Amendment:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


    I only bolded one word to show that seizures are not needed to be a violation of the 4th Amendment. An unreasonable search is a violation independent of any seizures that may or may not take place. It could be argued that the "and" means that both must exist, where "or" would mean one or the other.

    Being "secure in their persons, houses..." means that unless the government has met the criteria that gives them authority to search persons and houses, then the persons have the right to defend against such intrusions, whether it be defense by word or deed. My main point in the post you replied to is that there is no evidence of the will of anybody to resist such violations with word or deed in the cases of So Cal and Boston. This is your best argument.
    Yes the searches, especially in Boston where they actually removed the residents prior to the search, were unconstitutional. A cop should be able to ask the residents if a little Jihad dude entered their house, and should also be able to tell by their reaction what the answer is, regardless of the verbal answer.

Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 8161718

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