PDA

View Full Version : Just how do we protect what few rights we have left????


VaderSpade
02-01-2011, 10:45 AM
A game warden stopped me on national forest land last year and asks me if I was hunting. No guns were in sight, I told him I was not hunting at this time, but I was on my way to hunt. He asks if I had any guns in my truck. I told him yes they are properly stored in cases behind the seat. He asks if he can see them. I told him “I do not wish to give up any of my civil rights”. I told him he could see them only if he had the absolute right to do so. He told me to have a good day and sent me on my way.

I have read many threads about what rights an officer may or may not have when it comes to checking your guns in your car, or in the field. I have also seen the lawyer’s business cards that simply state I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY SEARCH! I have read both sides of the arguments stating “if you have nothing to hide” or “It will just piss them off and they will search anyway”

So I’m trying to come up with a middle ground wherein I may not piss an officer off while still refusing a search.

Below is a rough draft of what I would like to hand an officer when asked these questions. I would like help and opinions as to how to make it better, with a goal of retaining my rights without pissing off a cop. Thanks


As a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and a gun owner I know my rights are being attacked every day. This is happening to the point I may not know what rights I have on any given day. You ask if you can search my home, my car, my gun, and I don’t know how to answer.
As a law enforcement officer you should know the answer better than I. If you need to ask then the answer is NO, I will NOT give up ANY of my civil liberties. I DO NOT consent to ANY search.
I have nothing to hide, BUT I have a lot to lose, I have my FREEDOM to lose, and that I will not give up lightly.

Wherryj
02-01-2011, 10:54 AM
A game warden stopped me on national forest land last year and asks me if I was hunting. No guns were in sight, I told him I was not hunting at this time, but I was on my way to hunt. He asks if I had any guns in my truck. I told him yes they are properly stored in cases behind the seat. He asks if he can see them. I told him “I do not wish to give up any of my civil rights”. I told him he could see them only if he had the absolute right to do so. He told me to have a good day and sent me on my way.

I have read many threads about what rights an officer may or may not have when it comes to checking your guns in your car, or in the field. I have also seen the lawyer’s business cards that simply state I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY SEARCH! I have read both sides of the arguments stating “if you have nothing to hide” or “It will just piss them off and they will search anyway”

So I’m trying to come up with a middle ground wherein I may not piss an officer off while still refusing a search.

Below is a rough draft of what I would like to hand an officer when asked these questions. I would like help and opinions as to how to make it better, with a goal of retaining my rights without pissing off a cop. Thanks


As a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and a gun owner I know my rights are being attacked every day. This is happening to the point I may not know what rights I have on any given day. You ask if you can search my home, my car, my gun, and I don’t know how to answer.
As a law enforcement officer you should know the answer better than I. If you need to ask then the answer is NO, I will NOT give up ANY of my civil liberties. I DO NOT consent to ANY search.
I have nothing to hide, BUT I have a lot to lose, I have my FREEDOM to lose, and that I will not give up lightly.

You're lucky that you didn't get the DFG Officer "Fife" that stopped a friend of mine a while back to check on their limit of ducks.

They had three hunters who each bagged 7 ducks. The problem was that the three guys had three duck straps, but their youngest member had ended up putting the ducks unequally on the stringers. Thus they had one with 7, one with 8 and one with 6.

The DFG guy threatened for quite a while to cite them ($9k fine). Just a warming i f you get someone unreasonable, you just might get trouble while trying to protect your rights.

taperxz
02-01-2011, 11:06 AM
Yet at the same token F&G. Is assisting you when you had problems and you are all for them doing whatever it takes to have them punished. What right did you lose? You said the warden sent you on your way?

The interviews were also back in Oct. and no they...

The interviews were also back in Oct. and no they didn’t even try to apologize, they just lied and they were bad lies at that.

Like I said I’m sure they think this has all blown over.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=356969

VaderSpade
02-01-2011, 11:15 AM
Taperxz

I have respect for our officers, the above example ended quite well in my option. I just want all encounters to end as well.

Being assaulted while hunting has nothing to do with this thread! Why are you bringing that thread over here???

Because F&G is assisting me on one case (doing their job) doesn't mean I should give up my rights as a citizen?

Patrick Aherne
02-01-2011, 11:25 AM
You didn't give consent, no search was made and you went on your way. Why are you obsessing over this?

taperxz
02-01-2011, 11:34 AM
Taperxz

I have respect for our officers, the above example ended quite well in my option. I just want all encounters to end as well.

Being assaulted while hunting has nothing to do with this thread! Why are you bringing that thread over here???

Because F&G is assisting me on one case (doing their job) doesn't mean I should give up my rights as a citizen?


Exactly! Doing their job! There is no right lost if they ask and you consent. My point of the other thread being posted here is to simply show how attitudes change when the shoe is on the other foot.

You were so upset with your prior experience I bet you wouldn't have cared how LE got info to help YOU with that case.

VaderSpade
02-01-2011, 11:52 AM
Patrick

I’m not obsessing, I was giving an example of an encounter that ended well. I think it ended well because I asserted my rights.
The point of this thread is; how do we assert our rights without upsetting our fine officers?
How is that point NOT getting across?

VaderSpade
02-01-2011, 11:57 AM
Taperxz said; "I bet you wouldn't have cared how LE got info to help YOU with that case."

You could not be more wrong on this point. I care because if rules are broken cases get thrown out. I want all T’s crossed and I’s dotted.

If you don’t have any positive input please stop trolling.

taperxz
02-01-2011, 12:04 PM
Once you told the warden you had guns, he had every right within the law to check your firearms to see if they were loaded or not. You told him you were not hunting YET. I think that would equal, nothing in the hole, nothing in the mag. If you were hunting he would only check what was in the hole. This all depends on the Natl. Forest and what type of road you were on. Open for correction.

taperxz
02-01-2011, 12:07 PM
Taperxz said; "I bet you wouldn't have cared how LE got info to help YOU with that case."

You could not be more wrong on this point. I care because if rules are broken cases get thrown out. I want all T’s crossed and I’s dotted.

If you don’t have any positive input please stop trolling.

Sorry if you think I'm trolling. Your OP seems to be you complaining about a non event. The warden could have checked your firearms legally.

VaderSpade
02-01-2011, 12:12 PM
It seems as though we’re off to a bad start here.

I have read many threads here where people don’t know just how to assert their rights without unsetting officers. The thread that got me started on this was one where officers are checking guns at the range. I’ve never been checked, although I have had officers come up and ask “are all of these guns legal?” I said yes and they moved on. Others are saying officers are picking up their guns and checking them.

I’m not comfortable handing anyone I don’t know my gun, but especially when I might not get it back because the officer does NOT know the law.

I am asking for help and opinions on how to inform officers that I don’t wish to give up my civil rights without upsetting them.

taperxz
02-01-2011, 12:18 PM
That's cool, but in your OP the Warden could have required an E check. That's where the big question came up. You were able to drive away without him checking when he could legally check your guns.

VaderSpade
02-01-2011, 12:23 PM
I guess I muddied the thread with examples.

Let’s make it simple. If I do not want to give up my civil liberties should I just hand the officer my lawyer’s card stating I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY SEARCH! And hope he doesn’t get upset, or should I try to explain that I’m tired of losing my rights and don’t want them violated?

The statement below is the most diplomatic way I think I can assert my rights. I think a good officer can understand without getting too upset. What do you think of this statement, and how can it be improved?

As a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and a gun owner I know my rights are being attacked every day. This is happening to the point I may not know what rights I have on any given day or place. You ask if you can search my home, my car, my gun, and I don’t know how to answer.
As a law enforcement officer you should know the answer better than I. If you need to ask then the answer is NO, I will NOT give up ANY of my civil liberties. I DO NOT consent to ANY search.
I have nothing to hide, BUT I have a lot to lose, I have my FREEDOM to lose, and that I will not give up lightly.

VaderSpade
02-01-2011, 12:32 PM
That's cool, but in your OP the Warden could have required an E check. That's where the big question came up. You were able to drive away without him checking when he could legally check your guns.
He did ask if they were locked in a case and unloaded before he let me go.

One of the problems is that none of us really knows where our rights have been taken away. Where or when we may be searched because this or that court said so, or you give up your rights to be able to hunt, or drive or whatever. This is subject to change every day. So when an officer asks if he can check how do I really know, and where do we draw the line?

mdimeo
02-01-2011, 12:33 PM
"Sorry, Officer. I know you're just doing your job, but I'm kinda a civil rights nerd and I do not consent to any searches. Am I free to go?"

Short, polite, states your position, and provides a seed of worry that an unlawful search could end up in court.

taperxz
02-01-2011, 12:33 PM
I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't try to lawyer up.

When asked I have always taken this route, " Nothing personal officer/deputy/warden, but I can't find any reason why we need to go through all my personal belongings at this time. Unless, you see something that isn't right.". Put it this way, if they do see something not right, they ain't gonna ask you. It will be a simple get out of the car!

taperxz
02-01-2011, 12:39 PM
He did ask if they were locked in a case and unloaded before he let me go.

One of the problems is that none of us really knows where our rights have been taken away. Where or when we may be searched because this or that court said so, or you give up your rights to be able to hunt, or drive or whatever. This is subject to change every day. So when an officer asks if he can check how do I really know, and where do we draw the line?

The second you told him you had a firearm, you gave him the legal ability to check. It seems he was cool enough to not want to bother.

When you told him you had guns.... Well rule number 1. Loose lips sinks ships. Exercise your right to remain silent and you will preserve your search and seizure rights;)

VaderSpade
02-01-2011, 12:40 PM
This is what I'm looking for thanks.
Keep is simple.

VaderSpade
02-01-2011, 12:47 PM
"The second you told him you had a firearm, you gave him the legal ability to check."

I knew everything was legal and I didn’t want to lie. How do you answer that question without lying or making him think you have something to hide by refusing to answer?

taperxz
02-01-2011, 12:54 PM
You can still be cool and tell him you don't want to inventory the entire contents of your vehicle to him. He already KNOWS this game. Just be cool he understands. It's his job to fish. Don't be intimidated by the POWER bait:cool2:

chrisw
02-01-2011, 1:02 PM
excercise your rights = you must have something to hide

don't excercise your rights = your rights get trampled.

I like the idea of planning how to handle situations like this though. It sucks when you think you know your rights, but your not really sure, so you go ahead and consent... and then you feel like crap afterwards because you know your rights were violated.

stix213
02-01-2011, 1:02 PM
I would have told him "I'm sorry sir but I am not going to answer that question." I've never had a problem with any officer I have told this in response to any question.

Telling an officer you have guns allows the officer to do a PC 12031(e) check to verify they are unloaded if your firearms are at a location where them being loaded would not be legal. Anywhere you cannot shoot is somewhere it is not legal to have them loaded (such as on a road, etc).

refusing a 12031(e) check is grounds for arrest per the PC. Yes I believe this law is unconstitutional, but its being enforced every day.

12031(e):

(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
this section.

chrisw
02-01-2011, 1:04 PM
You can still be cool and tell him you don't want to inventory the entire contents of your vehicle to him. He already KNOWS this game. Just be cool he understands. It's his job to fish. Don't be intimidated by the POWER bait:cool2:

That's the part that makes me angry. They know that they're playing a game with your rights.

Kukuforguns
02-01-2011, 1:28 PM
Police officers know that they are being intrusive when they ask questions. How often do total strangers ask you if you have guns in your car? With the exception of police officers, the answer "never" comes to mind. Accordingly, police officers asking these types of fishing questions are being intentionally rude (rude is too strong, but you get the idea). Moreover, by asking a question, the police officer has put you in the position of having to respond which is not good strategy from our point of view. Given that the police officer is being intrusive, you should not feel any obligation to answer truthfully. This is actually the hard part since we are socialized such that we feel that refusing to respond is rude. You should practice (which is what you were doing when you prepared that written statement) how to respond without answering. I suggest turning the tables on the officer, "Is there a particular reason you need to know that information officer?" Say it nicely. Now, you have put the police officer in the position of having to justify his fishing expedition. If the officer's explanation does not seem sufficient to you, politely say "Thank you for explaning, but I'm going to exercise my right to remain silent. Am I free to leave?"

I suggest leaving out the bit about having our rights trampled.

Practice is essential. You better believe the police are practicing how to get people to respond and that they are being trained on how to get responses. They ask intrusive questions every day - they have much more practical experience than the average Joe. You need to practice, or you will find it very difficult not to answer.

nicki
02-01-2011, 3:25 PM
Many posts regarding rights start off with something like "How do I protect my rights against XXXXXX."

The truth is our government is out of control, we live under what I would term "soft tyranny".

"Hard Tyranny" comes when the government just calls out troops to put unruly "subjects" in their place.

The bill of rights has 10 amendments and even that isn't inclusive.

Protecting your rights means you have to be willing to protect the rights of others, especially those you actually despise.

I am glad you are concerned about more than just the 2nd amendment.

The only way I see to restore our rights is both the political right and political left will have to "tolerate" each others "quirks" or "percieved rights" and work together to get the government out of areas of our lives it has no business being in.

Most LEO types just want to get through their shifts alive and if you recognize that mentality and have a non confrontational attitude, most cops can be dealt with.

You can respectfully say no.

Nicki

Luieburger
02-01-2011, 3:34 PM
Protecting your rights means you have to be willing to protect the rights of others, especially those you actually despise.

I might just have to make that my new sig quote.

arsilva32
02-01-2011, 3:52 PM
Police officers know that they are being intrusive when they ask questions. How often do total strangers ask you if you have guns in your car? With the exception of police officers, the answer "never" comes to mind. Accordingly, police officers asking these types of fishing questions are being intentionally rude (rude is too strong, but you get the idea). Moreover, by asking a question, the police officer has put you in the position of having to respond which is not good strategy from our point of view. Given that the police officer is being intrusive, you should not feel any obligation to answer truthfully. This is actually the hard part since we are socialized such that we feel that refusing to respond is rude. You should practice (which is what you were doing when you prepared that written statement) how to respond without answering. I suggest turning the tables on the officer, "Is there a particular reason you need to know that information officer?" Say it nicely. Now, you have put the police officer in the position of having to justify his fishing expedition. If the officer's explanation does not seem sufficient to you, politely say "Thank you for explaning, but I'm going to exercise my right to remain silent. Am I free to leave?"

I suggest leaving out the bit about having our rights trampled.

Practice is essential. You better believe the police are practicing how to get people to respond and that they are being trained on how to get responses. They ask intrusive questions every day - they have much more practical experience than the average Joe. You need to practice, or you will find it very difficult not to answer.



+1 fantastic explanation of how to handle that situation.does anyone see a problem with this? if keeping it polite and civil this is the way i would go.

taperxz
02-01-2011, 4:36 PM
+1 fantastic explanation of how to handle that situation.does anyone see a problem with this? if keeping it polite and civil this is the way i would go.

I would not ask the officer that question. You have now put him in a position to have to explain himself. Most folks don't like to have to explain themselves when they are the "authoritarian"at work doing their job. Much easier to tell the officer you don't wish to discuss the contents of your vehicle. The officer will then figure you know your rights with such a reply. Again, they do this every day!

I don't need to ask the officer why he wants to check things out and he doesn't have to answer. Likewise for me. He can ask, i can decline, everything is understood. Its really not complicated.