PDA

View Full Version : "New Mexico High Court Rules Cops Can Seize Guns During Traffic Stops"


Coded-Dude
06-01-2011, 7:31 AM
sorry if this is a dupe, I search both calguns and google and found nothing.

Go figure this one:

Police officers in New Mexico can take guns away from drivers who pose no threat. The state supreme court ruled on May 20 that “officer safety” is more important than any constitutional rights a gun-owning motorist might have. The ruling was handed down in deciding the fate of Gregory Ketelson who was a passenger in a vehicle pulled over on November 13, 2008.

During the stop, Hobbs Police Officer Miroslava Bleau saw a 9mm handgun on the back seat floorboard. Ketelson and the driver of the car were ordered out and away from the car while Officer Shane Blevins grabbed the gun. The officers later learned that Ketelson, as a convicted felon, could not legally possess a firearm. The court, however, only considered whether the officers acted properly in taking the gun before they had any reason to suspect Ketelson, who was entirely cooperative during the encounter, of committing a crime.

The court ruled that the police had acted properly, agreeing with prosecutors who said "that anyone with a gun ought to be considered 'armed and dangerous' and thus the gun could be seized at any time."

This case overturns a 2005 ruling in which the court found

"It would be anomalous to treat the mere presence of a firearm in an automobile as supporting a reasonable suspicion that the occupants are inclined to harm an officer in the course of a routine traffic stop,” the court held in 2005.

Whole account at the excellent site The Truth About Cars. (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/05/new-mexico-supreme-court-lets-cops-grab-guns-during-stops/)source (http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/01/new-mexico-high-court-rules-co)


one step forward.....two steps back. :(

Grakken
06-01-2011, 7:49 AM
Just wow...

uyoga
06-01-2011, 8:02 AM
SCOTUS, here we come!

Coded-Dude
06-01-2011, 8:08 AM
I was a little surprised they overturned the 05 law, especially since the "rehabilitated" felon cooperated completely and allegedly posed no real threat.

steelrain82
06-01-2011, 8:10 AM
So using the courts logic we can reasonable suspect that a cop who carries a gun, baton, mace, and a tazer are dangerous threats to the people they stop. I'm all for cops being safe but that this just created a whole new class of people. Their safety is more important than someone's constitutional rights is just insane. Especially since the gun was I. The back seat. On a side note I hope the felon was arrested and put in jail

scarville
06-01-2011, 8:21 AM
Be honest now. Is anyone really surprised at this?

IGOTDIRT4U
06-01-2011, 8:28 AM
Be honest now. Is anyone really surprised at this?

The fact that it is New Mexico, yeah, I am.

Patriot Man
06-01-2011, 8:32 AM
Unfortunately due to the renewal of the Unpatriot Act (I will never call this "The Patriot Act" due to it's absolute contradiction to the US constitution) I think we will see more of this Infringement on our rights. Lawful gun owners scare an Unlawful government. We have to put our money where our mouth is and donate- to SAF and other organizations. I think I will today.

QQQ
06-01-2011, 8:33 AM
The fact that it is New Mexico, yeah, I am.

New Mexico is like the California of the Southwest. Not surprising at all.

Coded-Dude
06-01-2011, 8:33 AM
I'm not surprised that a lower courts would completely ignore the civil rights of all to protect a certain group of people, but it still disgusts me.

morfeeis
06-01-2011, 8:34 AM
“officer safety” is more important than any constitutional rights"

This worries me so much that someone in the judicial branch would ever say this in this context. guilty till proven innocent then now?

PatriotnMore
06-01-2011, 8:34 AM
The one line of officer safety is more important the Constitutional rights, clearly demonstrates the level of corruption in our judicial system, we live in interesting and dangerous times my friends. So I guess that same argument may now be applied to all rights.

bob7122
06-01-2011, 8:37 AM
what happened to innocent until proven guilty, and our rights.

so just because i have a gun in my car i have bad intentions? WTH? are you serious gun owners in New Mexico just got classified as criminals! and What about cops as some other member posted? if they have guns are they bad ppl too.

PatriotnMore
06-01-2011, 8:50 AM
what happened to innocent until proven guilty, and our rights.

so just because i have a gun in my car i have bad intentions? WTH? are you serious gun owners in New Mexico just got classified as criminals! and What about cops as some other member posted? if they have guns are they bad ppl too.

No, the courts are creating a class system society, not the equality for all, and equal in the eyes of the law we have under the constitution. Once again, another un-constitutional ruling if I've ever seen one, only this is an in your face and blatantly, a we don't care attitude.

scarville
06-01-2011, 8:54 AM
“officer safety” is more important than any constitutional rights"
This worries me so much that someone in the judicial branch would ever say this in this context. guilty till proven innocent then now?
While I agree that is an apt summary of the practical effect, the phrase was not actually used in the decision (PDF) (http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/nm-gungrab.pdf). IANAL but this looks to me like a bunch of judicial two-stroking to further defang State v Garcia.

choprzrul
06-01-2011, 8:56 AM
This all seems to support keeping your firearms in a locked case and keeping your mouth shut during a traffic stop. Remove probable cause.

That is our defense. Gura is our offense until USSC slaps 'em down and makes things right again.

I long for the day when I am able to freely and openly exercise my civil rights without fear of arrest.

.

dustoff31
06-01-2011, 9:59 AM
The moral of the story. Don't drive around with an expired registration on your car.

J.D.Allen
06-01-2011, 10:11 AM
I'm not too concerned about this. This is already law in AZ, it was part of the CC bill, used to get CLEO's on board with it. If an officer asks you during a lawful detention if you have a weapon you must tell the truth, and the officer is allowed to take possession of the weapon for the duration of the lawful detention. He has to give it back and the end of the contact though, assuming there's no reason you're not supposed to have it. It's not that big of a deal.

ChuangTzu
06-01-2011, 10:38 AM
>It's not that big of a deal.

Agreed. The case described seems to be a classic Terry stop in action.

See for example: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=000&page=07-1122

cdtx2001
06-01-2011, 10:44 AM
The 4th Amendment is dead in this country.

bwiese
06-01-2011, 10:49 AM
I'm not THAT worried.

Firstly, the individual failed The Big IQ Test.

This also sounds like a Hail Mary case from a public defender trying to quash a felon-in-possession case thru suppression.

dustoff31
06-01-2011, 11:20 AM
I'm not THAT worried.

Firstly, the individual failed The Big IQ Test.

This also sounds like a Hail Mary case from a public defender trying to quash a felon-in-possession case thru suppression.

I was going to say something like that. I'm not even a lawyer, and I know better than to take this case into court.

tiki
06-01-2011, 11:25 AM
I'm not that worried either. If i'm pulled over and the cop wants to hold my firearm until he's done writing the ticket and verifying my CCW and serial number, the so be it. As long as the firearm leaves with me after the determination that i'm legal and the cop is finished, then fine.

If I were a cop, (i'm not), and I pulled someone over that I have never seen before, and, they had a firearm in the car, I would want to have that under control until I was done. I don't see a problem with the cop acting to protect him/her self. I'm ok with this one.

My good cause statement for having a CCW was self defense. I don't really need that with an armed cop standing next to me. The argument where it takes the police too long to respond sort of goes away here. :)

Yeah, keeping and bearing a firearm is my right, but, I think the cop has some reasonable rights here, personal safety being one of them.

M1A Rifleman
06-01-2011, 11:30 AM
What next, anyone with a mouth is suspect, as they could yell "Fire" in a crowded place? :confused:

Armed and dangerous.....yep.:43:

Coded-Dude
06-01-2011, 11:30 AM
I'm not that worried either. If i'm pulled over and the cop wants to hold my firearm until he's done writing the ticket and verifying my CCW and serial number, the so be it. As long as the firearm leaves with me after the determination that i'm legal and the cop is finished, then fine.

If I were a cop, (i'm not), and I pulled someone over that I have never seen before, and, they had a firearm in the car, I would want to have that under control until I was done. I don't see a problem with the cop acting to protect him/her self. I'm ok with this one.

My good cause statement for having a CCW was self defense. I don't really need that with an armed cop standing next to me. The argument where it takes the police too long to respond sort of goes away here. :)

Yeah, keeping and bearing a firearm is my right, but, I think the cop has some reasonable rights here, personal safety being one of them.


until of course you get pulled over by someone impersonating an officer who then steals your gun and robs your blind................

tenpercentfirearms
06-01-2011, 11:32 AM
I don't see what the big deal is. On a lawful traffic stop, the officer sees a handgun in the rear floor board. He orders the two out of the vehicle, which is legal. He then finds out one of them is a felon.

Rule #1: Respect the "plain view rule". If you don't want cops to see your stuff, don't leave it out where they can see it.

Rule #2: Don't commit felonies. I know there are some pretty lame felonies out there, but if you get on, you are done owning guns. Don't get felonies.

Rule #3: If you have a felony, don't roll around with guns in your car.

It wasn't so much seizing the gun was the problem. It was the felon in possession of it that was the problem.

vantec08
06-01-2011, 11:36 AM
"there is US . . .. then there is THEM"

paul0660
06-01-2011, 11:37 AM
I don't see what the big deal is. On a lawful traffic stop, the officer sees a handgun in the rear floor board. He orders the two out of the vehicle, which is legal. He then finds out one of them is a felon.

Rule #1: Respect the "plain view rule". If you don't want cops to see your stuff, don't leave it out where they can see it.

Rule #2: Don't commit felonies. I know there are some pretty lame felonies out there, but if you get on, you are done owning guns. Don't get felonies.

Rule #3: If you have a felony, don't roll around with guns in your car.

It wasn't so much seizing the gun was the problem. It was the felon in possession of it that was the problem.

Yup. Seize is absolutely the wrong word to use regarding this decision.

BTW one of the things one agrees to when completing the California CCW application is to "To show the license or surrender the concealed weapon to any peace officer upon
demand."

Coded-Dude
06-01-2011, 11:47 AM
I don't see what the big deal is. On a lawful traffic stop, the officer sees a handgun in the rear floor board. He orders the two out of the vehicle, which is legal. He then finds out one of them is a felon.

Rule #1: Respect the "plain view rule". If you don't want cops to see your stuff, don't leave it out where they can see it.

Rule #2: Don't commit felonies. I know there are some pretty lame felonies out there, but if you get on, you are done owning guns. Don't get felonies.

Rule #3: If you have a felony, don't roll around with guns in your car.

It wasn't so much seizing the gun was the problem. It was the felon in possession of it that was the problem.

I can agree with most of this common sense, but the ruling doesn't just cover felons.....it covers everybody.

paul0660
06-01-2011, 11:51 AM
I can agree with most of this common sense, but the ruling doesn't just cover felons.....it covers everybody.

Until we can tatoo a warning on felons faces, that is the way it has to be. More common sense, imo.

choprzrul
06-01-2011, 11:54 AM
Hmmm, been thinking about this. What would the reaction to this decision have been if we replaced 'gun' with:

1: 'Newspaper'
2: 'Bible'
3: 'Petition'

All are constitutionally enumerated civil rights, but yet government authorities see fit to seize our guns on sight??? Organized religion has killed 100's of millions of people throughout the ages, but yet it is just fine to roll with your Koran, Bilble, Book of Morman, etc. Looks to me like all civil rights are not being treated equally.

Are loaded firearms allowed in vehicles in any of the constitutional carry states? If so, what are the incident rates of compromised officer safety during traffic stops where a firearm is involved? If those states don't have increased rates of officer injury during traffic stops with firearms present, then the whole 'officer safety' argument goes flying out the window.

Makes me wonder how furious the press would be if newspapers (freedom of the press) were being seized???

.

Coded-Dude
06-01-2011, 12:04 PM
Until we can tatoo a warning on felons faces, that is the way it has to be. More common sense, imo.

you are assuming all felons are not rehabilitated and pose a verifiable threat to society(and thus should be labeled "dangerous"). the man complied completely with the officer. He certainly made a bonehead mistake by having the firearm in the car.....that is of course considering it was his. Remember, he was merely a PASSENGER, how they deemed him to be in "possession" of the firearm(And not the driver) is not in the article. Nor is the detail regarding who's firearm it was and whether it was "legal."

dustoff31
06-01-2011, 12:14 PM
Hmmm, been thinking about this. What would the reaction to this decision have been if we replaced 'gun' with:

1: 'Newspaper'
2: 'Bible'
3: 'Petition'


I have no doubt it would have turned out the same way if the court could be convinced that a newspaper, bible, or petition, presented the same potential threat that a gun does.

choprzrul
06-01-2011, 12:21 PM
I have no doubt it would have turned out the same way if the court could be convinced that a newspaper, bible, or petition, presented the same potential threat that a gun does.

That comes down to the person holding the...

gun

newspaper

bible

petition

....not the object itself.

Or, are you arguing that the person bears no responsibility, only the inanimate object?

.

paul0660
06-01-2011, 12:29 PM
you are assuming all felons are not rehabilitated and pose a verifiable threat to society(and thus should be labeled "dangerous"). the man complied completely with the officer. He certainly made a bonehead mistake by having the firearm in the car.....that is of course considering it was his. Remember, he was merely a PASSENGER, how they deemed him to be in "possession" of the firearm(And not the driver) is not in the article. Nor is the detail regarding who's firearm it was and whether it was "legal."

I think that felons should regain their gun rights after a time, personally. Sorry I went over your head with my fanciful solution. If I wanted to wear myself out I would respond to your "points", but I know you are being intentionally obtuse. Have a nice afternoon.

BigDogatPlay
06-01-2011, 12:30 PM
This also sounds like a Hail Mary case from a public defender trying to quash a felon-in-possession case thru suppression.

DING DING DING DING..... tell him what he's won Johnny!!!! :D

I disagree with some of the wording in the ruling about the concept of officer safety completely trumping a civil right. But at it's core, this decision seems to reaffirm both Terry and the plain view doctrine.

In my non-lawyerly opinion, anyway.

dustoff31
06-01-2011, 12:41 PM
That comes down to the person holding the...

gun

newspaper

bible

petition

....not the object itself.

Or, are you arguing that the person bears no responsibility, only the inanimate object?

.

I'm not making an argument either way. Just saying that if the court could have been convinced that a newspaper held the same potential as a gun, they would have ruled the same way.

What I will argue is that we, well NM gunowners, now have this to deal with thanks to a couple of utter dumb***es. All they had to do was pay their car tags and store the gun properly. There would have been no traffic stop, no gun "seizure", no court case.

Coded-Dude
06-01-2011, 12:53 PM
I'm not making an argument either way. Just saying that if the court could have been convinced that a newspaper held the same potential as a gun, they would have ruled the same way.

What I will argue is that we, well NM gunowners, now have this to deal with thanks to a couple of utter dumb***es. All they had to do was pay their car tags and store the gun properly. There would have been no traffic stop, no gun "seizure", no court case.


first point; if officer safety is so imperative why then do they not confiscate one's keys as well? A running car could certainly be deemed dangerous to officer safety.

second point; absolutely correct, these two boneheads just hurt the 2A rights of a lot of people

@ Paul - if you were being facetious, then yes...I missed your point. Sorry about that.

dustoff31
06-01-2011, 1:06 PM
first point; if officer safety is so imperative why then do they not confiscate one's keys as well? A running car could certainly be deemed dangerous to officer safety.

Sometimes they do. If not confiscate the keys, tell the person to turn off the ignition and maybe even put the keys up on the dash.

tiki
06-01-2011, 1:09 PM
until of course you get pulled over by someone impersonating an officer who then steals your gun and robs your blind................

Yeah...no.

rodeoflyer
06-01-2011, 1:11 PM
I'm not that worried either. If i'm pulled over and the cop wants to hold my firearm until he's done writing the ticket and verifying my CCW and serial number, the so be it. As long as the firearm leaves with me after the determination that i'm legal and the cop is finished, then fine.

If I were a cop, (i'm not), and I pulled someone over that I have never seen before, and, they had a firearm in the car, I would want to have that under control until I was done. I don't see a problem with the cop acting to protect him/her self. I'm ok with this one.

My good cause statement for having a CCW was self defense. I don't really need that with an armed cop standing next to me. The argument where it takes the police too long to respond sort of goes away here. :)

Yeah, keeping and bearing a firearm is my right, but, I think the cop has some reasonable rights here, personal safety being one of them.

I agree with you, but the other 99.9% of us don't have CCW's....:(

I don't see what the big deal is. On a lawful traffic stop, the officer sees a handgun in the rear floor board. He orders the two out of the vehicle, which is legal. He then finds out one of them is a felon.

Rule #1: Respect the "plain view rule". If you don't want cops to see your stuff, don't leave it out where they can see it.

Rule #2: Don't commit felonies. I know there are some pretty lame felonies out there, but if you get on, you are done owning guns. Don't get felonies.

Rule #3: If you have a felony, don't roll around with guns in your car.

It wasn't so much seizing the gun was the problem. It was the felon in possession of it that was the problem.

+1

steelrain82
06-01-2011, 1:22 PM
you are assuming all felons are not rehabilitated and pose a verifiable threat to society(and thus should be labeled "dangerous"). the man complied completely with the officer. He certainly made a bonehead mistake by having the firearm in the car.....that is of course considering it was his. Remember, he was merely a PASSENGER, how they deemed him to be in "possession" of the firearm(And not the driver) is not in the article. Nor is the detail regarding who's firearm it was and whether it was "legal."

it doesnt matter if the felons are rehabilitated or not. i have comed to notice that on here it doesnt matter if you are a felon, or what you are a felon for. the fact is you are a felon, just like most people see them. they could be the most rehabilitated man in the world but as soon as you find out that they are a felon most people automatically have a different view about the person.

glockman19
06-01-2011, 1:38 PM
The one line of officer safety is more important the Constitutional rights, clearly demonstrates the level of corruption in our judicial system, we live in interesting and dangerous times my friends. So I guess that same argument may now be applied to all rights.

Amen Brother...

Nick Justice
06-01-2011, 1:40 PM
This also sounds like a Hail Mary case from a public defender trying to quash a felon-in-possession case thru suppression.

Yup. The higher courts hate letting criminals go on technicalities like this one.

Also, the defendant ratified the search (gave consent after the search was made, signed off on it). This killed his case big time.

So, never consent to a search, and never sign off on it later.

And, don't be in possession if you are a prohibited person.

Coded-Dude
06-01-2011, 1:55 PM
it had to just be constructive possession, unless the driver was also a felon and/or it was the felons car and he was just riding shotgun. The report is more about that case ruling than details specific to the stop.

armygunsmith
06-01-2011, 2:12 PM
So using the courts logic we can reasonable suspect that a cop who carries a gun, baton, mace, and a tazer are dangerous threats to the people they stop. I'm all for cops being safe but that this just created a whole new class of people. Their safety is more important than someone's constitutional rights is just insane. Especially since the gun was I. The back seat. On a side note I hope the felon was arrested and put in jail

This is exactly what came to mind after reading the excerpt.

chris12
06-01-2011, 2:34 PM
If I were a cop, (i'm not), and I pulled someone over that I have never seen before, and, they had a firearm in the car, I would want to have that under control until I was done. I don't see a problem with the cop acting to protect him/her self. I'm ok with this one.

If I were a citizen and I was pulled over by someone that I have never seen before, and they had a firearm on their hip, I would want to have that under control until I was let go. I don't see a problem with a citizen acting to protect him/her self.

Note: I'm not advocating trying to get an officer's gun, just pointing out that the citizen has an EQUAL concern for their own safety.


Rule #1: Respect the "plain view rule". If you don't want cops to see your stuff, don't leave it out where they can see it.
Effective, but I shouldn't have to hide my newspaper, bible, or gun.

choprzrul
06-01-2011, 4:49 PM
Effective, but I shouldn't have to hide my newspaper, bible, or gun.

^^^.......^^^
^^^THIS^^^
|.|.|.......|.|.|

IMHO this is our endgame. This is where we need to be working towards to get the public's attitude adjusted to accepting: 'Gun' belongs right in there along side of the rest of our civil rights. Once public opinion is on our side, everything else will fall into place.

.

sandman21
06-01-2011, 5:20 PM
I'm not THAT worried.

Firstly, the individual failed The Big IQ Test.

This also sounds like a Hail Mary case from a public defender trying to quash a felon-in-possession case thru suppression.

The New Mexico Supreme Court just gave California the defense for 12031e.

gbp
06-01-2011, 6:58 PM
New Mexico is like the California of the Southwest. Not surprising at all.

i would be interested as to how you formulated this opinion, since they have one of the lowest (or highest depending on your view) scores of any state in ratings by the brady group.

i have a personal interest in hearing your facts, you can pm them to me if you like

scarville
06-01-2011, 7:17 PM
Note: I'm not advocating trying to get an officer's gun, just pointing out that the citizen has an EQUAL concern for their own safety.
Morally and ethically you are correct. Legally, your concern is practically meaningless.

KylaGWolf
06-01-2011, 10:35 PM
Someone stated that a felon should regain their rights after a time. Depends on what the felony was quite frankly. Not to mention if the person is truly rehabilitated or just waiting til their parole/probation time is up. If they were found guilty of Domestic Violence I don't want them getting their rights back if they were truly guilty of it. I don't want a drug dealer to get his rights back either.

And yep I think the NM courts just gave California a free pass on E checks which means unless this gets challenged in a higher court we just got screwed.

Citizen 14
06-02-2011, 12:55 AM
i would be interested as to how you formulated this opinion, since they have one of the lowest (or highest depending on your view) scores of any state in ratings by the brady group.

i have a personal interest in hearing your facts, you can pm them to me if you like

+1 I would too. I lived in New Mexico for quite a while, at least half of my friends owned guns
In New Mexico you can a weapon concealed in your car
(my last girlfriend kept a 45 in her glove compartment ) in fact your car is considered an extension of your home.

You can open carry or CC in New Mexico.

You can carry in some restaurants.

You are not required to tell the police if you have a gun in your car.

The freakin Governor has a CC permit.

You haven't lived until you have had a Blakes green chile cheeseburger!

I tell you what I miss that place and if it wasn't for my folks being here, I'd go back, like yesterday.

ccmc
06-02-2011, 5:19 AM
+1 I would too. I lived in New Mexico for quite a while, at least half of my friends owned guns
In New Mexico you can a weapon concealed in your car
(my last girlfriend kept a 45 in her glove compartment ) in fact your car is considered an extension of your home.

You can open carry or CC in New Mexico.

You can carry in some restaurants.

You are not required to tell the police if you have a gun in your car.

The freakin Governor has a CC permit.

You haven't lived until you have had a Blakes green chile cheeseburger!

I tell you what I miss that place and if it wasn't for my folks being here, I'd go back, like yesterday.

I'm pretty sure you're required to inform if the officer asks. I think every state has that law.

kcbrown
06-02-2011, 5:32 AM
I long for the day when I am able to freely and openly exercise my civil rights without fear of arrest.


Likewise, but Kentucky v King illustrates that it's entirely possible that you'll never get your wish.

What a showdown that will be, when the Supreme Court is faced with a case that pits their love of the 2nd Amendment against their hatred of the 4th Amendment.

GrizzlyGuy
06-02-2011, 5:40 AM
The New Mexico Supreme Court just gave California the defense for 12031e.

It's worse than that. In Terry v. Ohio (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1), SCOTUS held that a person can be patted down if the officer believes they are both armed and dangerous:

Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous [392 U.S. 1, 3] regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed.

The NM court has just ruled that the mere presence of a firearm allows the police to assume that the person is dangerous. If that logic is combined with Terry and applied in CA, it means that a police officer is not only authorized to perform an e-check whenever he sees a person with a gun, but is also automatically authorized to conduct a pat down search as well.

tenpercentfirearms
06-02-2011, 6:17 AM
Here is the actual link to the decision. It isn't very long and some of you should read it.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/nm-gungrab.pdf

{2} The record reflects the following facts found by the district judge during the
suppression hearing. On the evening of November 13, 2008, Officer Shane Blevins of the
Hobbs Police Department stopped a GMC Jimmy with expired temporary tags. Officer
Blevins approached the driver side of the vehicle and informed the driver, Kerri Allen, of
the reason for the stop. Meanwhile, Officer Miroslava Bleau (née Jurado) approached the
passenger side of the vehicle, where Gregory Ketelson (Defendant) was seated. Officer
Bleau saw a black nine millimeter handgun lying on the back seat floorboard. Officer Bleau
asked Defendant to step out of the vehicle, and Officer Blevins retrieved the firearm from
the back seat floorboard. Neither Defendant nor Ms. Allen was in the vehicle when Officer
Blevins retrieved the firearm. After Officer Blevins retrieved the firearm, Defendant signed
a card consenting to the search and admitted that the firearm belonged to him.

{3} Officer Blevins requested dispatch to run a background check on Defendant. The
background check revealed that Defendant had a prior felony conviction in Texas for
burglary in 1999. Defendant was placed under arrest as a felon in possession of a firearm
in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-7-16 (2001).

{4} Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress the firearm and statements made to the
police regarding its ownership. Defendant argued that pursuant to State v. Garcia,
2005-NMSC-017, ¶ 29, 138 N.M. 1, 116 P.3d 72, an officer does not have authority to enter
a car and seize an object absent a search warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. The
State responded that the entry into the vehicle and removing the firearm were lawful as a
“minimal intrusion” necessary for officer safety while the officers determined that Defendant
was a felon. The district court found that the State did not make a showing sufficient to
support exigent circumstances; rather, it found that both Defendant and the driver of the car
were “at all times cooperative, and they created no apparent threat or imminent danger to life
or serious damage to property.” Accordingly, the district court granted the motion to
suppress, noting that non-felons may legally carry loaded handguns in private automobiles, and thus,
the State must make some showing beyond the mere presence of a firearm in the
car before officers effect a warrantless “seizure.”

So the handgun was in plain view, the felon admitted the firearm was his, and even though after the fact the firearm was seized, consented to a search of both his identity and belongings. Epic fail.

Against these
concerns, we must weigh the individual’s interest in freedom from governmental intrusion
upon a personal possessory interest. The officer’s removal of the firearm from the vehicle
was at most a minimal intrusion upon a personal possessory interest, as it was limited in
duration and did not interfere with any legitimate use for the firearm. Accordingly, because
the need for officer safety outweighs the minimal intrusion upon a personal possessory
interest occasioned by the officer’s retrieval of the firearm from the vehicle, it is reasonable,
pursuant to Article II, Section 10, for an officer to temporarily take possession of a visible
firearm during a lawful traffic stop.

In this case, we are mindful of the grave need for officer safety in the midst of the
dangers and uncertainties that are always inherent in traffic stops. We conclude that
removing Defendant’s firearm from the vehicle in order to ensure that it was beyond the
reach of any of the occupants during the stop was a reasonable and minimal intrusion, which
does not outweigh legitimate concerns of officer safety. Our decision in this case, which
addresses a temporary separation of a firearm from the occupants of a car during the duration
of a traffic stop, does not depend on any requirement of particularized suspicion that an
occupant is inclined to use the firearm improperly. As with other warrant exception cases,
our touchstone is the requirement of Article II, Section 10 of our New Mexico Constitution
that “[t]he people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from
unreasonable searches and seizures . . . .” Under the circumstances of this case, it was
constitutionally reasonable for the officer to remove the firearm from the vehicle. Therefore,
the evidence should not have been suppressed.

I have to look at this from a cop's perspective. Traffic stops are dangerous things. You are pulling someone over for a violation of some type of law. In California if you are driving with expired tags (like the situation here), your car can be impounded, much to the owner's displeasure. If a firearm is present, that makes it quite unsafe for the officer.

I certainly understand if I am being investigated for a crime and I am armed, the officer might not want me to be armed for their safety. Personally I don't see the problem with an officer disarming me for the duration of the investigation. I don't like it and would much prefer an officer didn't, but I can understand their reasoning. Personally, every time I have ever told an officer I was armed, they didn't do anything about it (wait, I have only told them once out of about 4 times).

However, this is assuming that they have stopped me with either reasonable suspicion or probable cause. If I am walking down the street and there is no reason for them to stop me, then there is no reason for them to take possession of my firearm as a "minimal intrusion".

Sorry guys, I just can't get all fired up over this one. If I were a cop, I would certainly want the ability to remove the firearm from an equation while I was investigating some sort of crime. This case is hardly ideal from a 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, or 2nd Amendment standpoint. The firearm was in plain view (keep your crap put away!), the defendant consented to a search, he waived his right to remain silent by admitting it was his firearm, and he consented to an ID check and was found to be a felon.

It is off topic, but I too agree that a guy arrested for burglary in 1999 should have his firearm rights restored. However, that isn't what they were fighting in this case and he still has to follow that law or try to challenge it.

tiki
06-02-2011, 6:48 AM
If I were a citizen and I was pulled over by someone that I have never seen before, and they had a firearm on their hip, I would want to have that under control until I was let go. I don't see a problem with a citizen acting to protect him/her self.

Note: I'm not advocating trying to get an officer's gun, just pointing out that the citizen has an EQUAL concern for their own safety.

Seriously? You are saying you want your gun in your possession in case you need it against the cop? What are you going to do, get into a shootout? Where do you think you are, Tombstone? Regardless of the circumstances, it's going to end badly for you.

tenpercentfirearms
06-02-2011, 6:53 AM
Seriously? You are saying you want your gun in your possession in case you need it against the cop? What are you going to do, get into a shootout? Where do you think you are, Tombstone? Regardless of the circumstances, it's going to end badly for you.

I agree 100%. Even if I had to, I still wouldn't want to shoot a cop unless it was on a live reality TV program where I had seven different camera angles with full audio.

Then again, how ofter do police randomly execute civilians and even then are you really going to be able to draw faster than them?

You fight the police in court, not on the street. Unless you like to lose.

Don29palms
06-02-2011, 7:54 AM
Hmmm, been thinking about this. What would the reaction to this decision have been if we replaced 'gun' with:

1: 'Newspaper'
2: 'Bible'
3: 'Petition'

All are constitutionally enumerated civil rights, but yet government authorities see fit to seize our guns on sight??? Organized religion has killed 100's of millions of people throughout the ages, but yet it is just fine to roll with your Koran, Bilble, Book of Morman, etc. Looks to me like all civil rights are not being treated equally.

Are loaded firearms allowed in vehicles in any of the constitutional carry states? If so, what are the incident rates of compromised officer safety during traffic stops where a firearm is involved? If those states don't have increased rates of officer injury during traffic stops with firearms present, then the whole 'officer safety' argument goes flying out the window.

Makes me wonder how furious the press would be if newspapers (freedom of the press) were being seized???

.

You have no rights in this country any more. You have privileges that the government has given you. The Constitution and Bill of Rights means nothing to judges. Cops can do whatever the hell they want to in the name of public safety and officer safety. You have no right to defend yourself against a cop because your personal safe isn't as important as officer safety.

I know I keep seeing comments like "This will be overturned by SCOTUS." What happens when the SCOTUS starts ruling that Constitutional rights are not as important as officer safety?

Don29palms
06-02-2011, 7:58 AM
I agree 100%. Even if I had to, I still wouldn't want to shoot a cop unless it was on a live reality TV program where I had seven different camera angles with full audio.

Then again, how ofter do police randomly execute civilians and even then are you really going to be able to draw faster than them?

You fight the police in court, not on the street. Unless you like to lose.

If things keep going the way they are you won't have to worry about it because you won't be able to fight the cops anyway. All cops are is paid enforcers for a corrupt government.

tenpercentfirearms
06-02-2011, 8:04 AM
You have no rights in this country any more. You have privileges that the government has given you. The Constitution and Bill of Rights means nothing to judges. Cops can do whatever the hell they want to in the name of public safety and officer safety. You have no right to defend yourself against a cop because your personal safe isn't as important as officer safety.

I know I keep seeing comments like "This will be overturned by SCOTUS" What happens when the SCOTUS starts ruling that Constitutional right are not as important as officer safety?

Lots of emotionalism there. Care to back it up with specific cases? I can think of the Randy Weaver and Waco cases where it was ruled lawful for those people to defend themselves against government agents. Of course those are pretty high profile, but I am sure there are others.

I just fully understand defending myself against a law enforcement officer is extremely risky on the street. I could punch or shoot a cop, but I am going to need some pretty irrefutable evidence in court, if I make it there. Odds are another officer responding to the scene would be ruled justified in shooting me if I even slightly resisted. And I would agree with the courts. Most people don't shoot police officers so how was a responding officer supposed to know I had used lawful self-defense?

And the funny thing is most of this is pretty pointless because these far fetched scenarios are quite rare. Most cops don't like to beat up law abiding citizens or try and execute them in the streets. So statistically speaking, your odds of having to defend yourself from a police officer are quite remote.

Will a cop rough you up and slam you around a bit? That is much more likely. There are well established guidelines for reporting these cases and fighting them in court.

This is where it pays to have the ability to use rational and well calculated thought. Complying with an officers illegal commands and not resisting greatly increases your odds of surviving the encounter, which is kind of the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. Preserving life and liberty. If you get lucky enough to have the encounter recorded, you will definitely gain points in the courtroom and outside for not resisting against oppression.

And that is where you could really screw the man. Cops can lose their jobs and be held financially responsible. I would much rather see that happen then me get wiped out for trying to physically fight the law. It just doesn't sound as macho or make me feel like such an immediate BA.

If things keep going the way they are you won't have to worry about it because you won't be able to fight the cops anyway. All cops are is paid enforcers for a corrupt government.
So, so true. That is why I wear this all the time.
http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/8496657f-ef19-482b-ad4e-c44ebb200fa9.jpg

cineski
06-02-2011, 8:19 AM
Several comments from my POV (all my in-laws are in NM). First, while there are a lot of great people in NM, there is an awful lot of gangbanger scum and violent Cholos they are battling. You can't even look at them because they'll want to kick your *** and if you're in the wrong area you could be stabbed or shot. Good times with cultural fail. Second, I've spoken to a few police officers including one of the higher up commanders in the ABQ police dpt and they are very pro gun for civilians. Third, there are far too many liberal loonies in NM. ABQ was a hotspot for illegal immigrants to come into this country to get a drivers license (according to my in-laws....I have not personally researched this). NM is a gun toting state through and through but they're unfortunately on the verge of being a micro CA in training (which I thought would change with the election of the new governor). None of these comments really adds up to much but that's what I've noticed while in NM.

Vinz
06-02-2011, 8:27 AM
I don't see what the big deal is. On a lawful traffic stop, the officer sees a handgun in the rear floor board. He orders the two out of the vehicle, which is legal. He then finds out one of them is a felon.

Rule #1: Respect the "plain view rule". If you don't want cops to see your stuff, don't leave it out where they can see it.

Rule #2: Don't commit felonies. I know there are some pretty lame felonies out there, but if you get on, you are done owning guns. Don't get felonies.

Rule #3: If you have a felony, don't roll around with guns in your car.

It wasn't so much seizing the gun was the problem. It was the felon in possession of it that was the problem.

exactly, it caught a felon didn't it.

Plus im sure a law abiding, resonably responsible gun owner would have a firearm in a safer spot.

BobB35
06-02-2011, 8:32 AM
Seriously? You are saying you want your gun in your possession in case you need it against the cop? What are you going to do, get into a shootout? Where do you think you are, Tombstone? Regardless of the circumstances, it's going to end badly for you.

Have you seen some of the cops lately and what they are being busted for. The fact they are armed and out on the streets with a badge and he unPatriot act behind them scares the crap out of me. I avoid contact with LEO's becasue they are some of the most dangerous people in this country right now. Both to my health and my civil right. If you don't see this or understand this I can't help you.

BobB35
06-02-2011, 8:35 AM
Lots of emotionalism there. Care to back it up with specific cases? I can think of the Randy Weaver and Waco cases where it was ruled lawful for those people to defend themselves against government agents. Of course those are pretty high profile, but I am sure there are others.

I just fully understand defending myself against a law enforcement officer is extremely risky on the street. I could punch or shoot a cop, but I am going to need some pretty irrefutable evidence in court, if I make it there. Odds are another officer responding to the scene would be ruled justified in shooting me if I even slightly resisted. And I would agree with the courts. Most people don't shoot police officers so how was a responding officer supposed to know I had used lawful self-defense?

And the funny thing is most of this is pretty pointless because these far fetched scenarios are quite rare. Most cops don't like to beat up law abiding citizens or try and execute them in the streets. So statistically speaking, your odds of having to defend yourself from a police officer are quite remote.

Will a cop rough you up and slam you around a bit? That is much more likely. There are well established guidelines for reporting these cases and fighting them in court.

This is where it pays to have the ability to use rational and well calculated thought. Complying with an officers illegal commands and not resisting greatly increases your odds of surviving the encounter, which is kind of the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. Preserving life and liberty. If you get lucky enough to have the encounter recorded, you will definitely gain points in the courtroom and outside for not resisting against oppression.

And that is where you could really screw the man. Cops can lose their jobs and be held financially responsible. I would much rather see that happen then me get wiped out for trying to physically fight the law. It just doesn't sound as macho or make me feel like such an immediate BA.


So, so true. That is why I wear this all the time.
http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/8496657f-ef19-482b-ad4e-c44ebb200fa9.jpg


Uh- no...you have no right to defend yourself against an LEO in CA...check it out....

As far as winning in a civil case...unless you have 3rd party video evidence you chance of willing is less than 10%...this **** gets covered up every day...if you don't think so you are blind.

Coded-Dude
06-02-2011, 8:42 AM
^this - when there is little to no evidence or witnesses, its your word against a cops......now look at all these recent rulings and tell me who the judge is gonna side with.

Don29palms
06-02-2011, 8:59 AM
Ok, Don't get me wrong here. In the original case the cop makes a stop for expired registration. OK. The cop sees a gun in the back seat. Does he ask the occupant to get out or does he order them to get out? There's a difference. The way it use to be in California you didn't have to get out of your car unless you were under arrest. I'm sure that has probably changed but I'm not sure. The cop can use whatever he sees in the car for probable cause for whatever he wants to search for. In my opinion the guys in the car got what they deserved. What bothers me the very most is the statement that officer safety is more important than civil rights. The judge that made that statement was sworn to uphold the Constitution not officer safety. I'm just saying.

tenpercentfirearms
06-02-2011, 9:00 AM
^this - when there is little to no evidence or witnesses, its your word against a cops......now look at all these recent rulings and tell me who the judge is gonna side with.

You guys can pretend like you don't have rights and that police are above the law. I am an upstanding member of my community. If the police want to try and play this game, I am ready. I will hold them accountable whether through the courts or through the electoral process of replacing the city council and replacing the police department administration.

I hold cops accountable and they will know it when they realize I know my rights. You guys might think your word vs. a cop's has you on the losing end. Mine won't be.

Again most of this is moot because police don't try and abuse my rights. They are courteous and polite when I have contact with them out in the field.

tenpercentfirearms
06-02-2011, 9:08 AM
Ok, Don't get me wrong here. In the original case the cop makes a stop for expired registration. OK. The cop sees a gun in the back seat. Does he ask the occupant to get out or does he order them to get out? There's a difference. The way it use to be in California you didn't have to get out of your car unless you were under arrest. I'm sure that has probably changed but I'm not sure. The cop can use whatever he sees in the car for probable cause for whatever he wants to search for. In my opinion the guys in the car got what they deserved. What bothers me the very most is the statement that officer safety is more important than civil rights. The judge that made that statement was sworn to uphold the Constitution not officer safety. I'm just saying.
Fair enough. So cops no longer have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? A police officer's right to life is just as important as your right to pursue happiness.

So officer safety is an offshoot of their rights as well. You can't suppress their rights in favor of your rights anymore than you should expect them to suppress your rights in favor of their rights.

So taken in context, law enforcement are given the job of enforcing the law. An officer has the right, according to this court, to temporarily remove a firearm from a lawful traffic stop for officer safety. Once the stop is over, then the officer is to return your firearm to you and let you on your way. No where in this decision does it say the officer can randomly take your firearms, no where does it say they can run your serial number to see if it is stolen, and no where does it say you have to notify the police you are carrying a firearm (your state laws might vary).

The good news is most law enforcement are not even going to bother. Do you think the officers had these people get out of the vehicle and they took control of the firearm because these people were in formal business attire? From experience police have a knack for telling who good guys and bad guys are. And in this very case, they definitely knew the difference as they took a gun off of a felon on the street.

Again, we can all learn from this. Keep items you don't want the police to see out of plain sight. If you can't do so, for example like open carry, then be prepared to deal with officers wanting to remove your firearm for their safety. Not all cops will do it, but some might. As long as you have done nothing wrong, they are going to give your gun back and let you go.

One more time, this all started over expired registration. Don't give the police a reason to stop you in the first place and never consent to searches.

Coded-Dude
06-02-2011, 9:19 AM
SNIP

Again most of this is moot because police don't try and abuse my rights. They are courteous and polite when I have contact with them out in the field.

For the most part this is true for all law-abiding citizens, including myself. However I have been on the wrong end of civil rights abuses by police officers who were in fact, abusing their powers under color of law. So I have seen both sides of the spectrum.

tiki
06-02-2011, 9:35 AM
Have you seen some of the cops lately and what they are being busted for.

Yes, I watch/read the news. However, most of them are good people doing a tough job. You lumping all cops in with the very few that make the news is the same as the anti crowd lumping all gun owners into the same group because of a few nut jobs that make the news.


The fact they are armed and out on the streets with a badge and he unPatriot act behind them scares the crap out of me.

We are talking about a traffic stop. I don't really live my life in fear like that, I'm sorry you do.

I avoid contact with LEO's becasue they are some of the most dangerous people in this country right now. Both to my health and my civil right. If you don't see this or understand this I can't help you.

Thanks, but I don't need any help.
I'm sorry your health and [sic] civil right is under such a threat. I don't know your situation so I can't really comment. Me? I'm ok. I talk to cops when I see them because I view them as regular people doing a job. I don't give them any reason to come do their job near me, that's all. I do the same for firemen, paramedics, surgeons and lawyers. I do what I can to minimize my interaction with them in their professional capacity and things seem to go fine for me. If someone decides to run from the police with a gun in the car and a joint in the ashtray, well, who's fault is that?
The only thing that scares me is Alzheimer's, Dementia, Cancer or a doctor with a rubber glove on in the same room.

chris12
06-02-2011, 9:39 AM
Seriously? You are saying you want your gun in your possession in case you need it against the cop? What are you going to do, get into a shootout? Where do you think you are, Tombstone? Regardless of the circumstances, it's going to end badly for you.

I agree 100%. Even if I had to, I still wouldn't want to shoot a cop unless it was on a live reality TV program where I had seven different camera angles with full audio.

Then again, how ofter do police randomly execute civilians and even then are you really going to be able to draw faster than them?

You fight the police in court, not on the street. Unless you like to lose.

I want to have the choice to have a gun in my possession to use for self defense against anyone I would need to defend myself against. While I know this isn't going to happen, it is what I believe should happen and what I hope for laws/rulings to move us closer to.

I agree that shooting an officer is a terrible idea, even if done legitimately for self defense. I don't think we are there yet, but these are the types of ideas and concessions that lead to things like the Holocaust. Should they have stood up to the officers taking them to concentration camps? Again, I'm not saying we are in the same situation, just that it is possible. I'm sure there is at least 1 corrupt officer out there, even if all the rest are following the law. I absolutely would rather fight the police in court, but if that's not an option then what?

Why do you all of a sudden not have a need for self defense when an officer is around? It's not like they have an obligation to protect you while they have your weapon confiscated.

chris12
06-02-2011, 9:47 AM
Morally and ethically you are correct. Legally, your concern is practically meaningless.

Sadly I agree, so much for self-evident.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

chris12
06-02-2011, 9:56 AM
Yes, I watch/read the news. However, most of them are good people doing a tough job. You lumping all cops in with the very few that make the news is the same as the anti crowd lumping all gun owners into the same group because of a few nut jobs that make the news.

Be it is cops or the general population, it is the few bad ones that are of concern and the ones that make having rights necessary. If everyone was good we wouldn't need any explicit rights.

I have the utmost respect for officers (and many others) that place themselves in harms way to protect and defend the Constitution. I'm not worried about interactions with them.

BobB35
06-02-2011, 10:25 AM
Be it is cops or the general population, it is the few bad ones that are of concern and the ones that make having rights necessary. If everyone was good we wouldn't need any explicit rights.

I have the utmost respect for officers (and many others) that place themselves in harms way to protect and defend the Constitution. I'm not worried about interactions with them.

I see this thrown around a lot....most LEOs have no idea what is in the Constitution and just do what they are told and make stuff up as they go along. Police have no duties or responsibility at all...the quicker you accept this the quicker you will understand what is happening...

BobB35
06-02-2011, 10:31 AM
Yes, I watch/read the news. However, most of them are good people doing a tough job. You lumping all cops in with the very few that make the news is the same as the anti crowd lumping all gun owners into the same group because of a few nut jobs that make the news.



We are talking about a traffic stop. I don't really live my life in fear like that, I'm sorry you do.



Thanks, but I don't need any help.
I'm sorry your health and [sic] civil right is under such a threat. I don't know your situation so I can't really comment. Me? I'm ok. I talk to cops when I see them because I view them as regular people doing a job. I don't give them any reason to come do their job near me, that's all. I do the same for firemen, paramedics, surgeons and lawyers. I do what I can to minimize my interaction with them in their professional capacity and things seem to go fine for me. If someone decides to run from the police with a gun in the car and a joint in the ashtray, well, who's fault is that?
The only thing that scares me is Alzheimer's, Dementia, Cancer or a doctor with a rubber glove on in the same room.

Wow...in a past world your title would have been Torie... If you do not understand what is happening, please do give up my rights becasue you don't do anything wrong....in this day and age I bet you really are doing something wrong and you just don't know it. My rights are a hell of a lot more important than officer safety...if they are concerned and can't respect my rights....they can change their line of work more easily than I can get my rights back. Every dictator loves people like you, the silent majority who feels - because they are doing nothing wrong - whatever the government wants to do is OK. Frankly you are the type of person that tyrannies are built upon...funny you post here but don't understand history.

Arondos
06-02-2011, 11:12 AM
Traffic stop, background check, routine. Handgun in plain view, felon. I really don't see what there is here to get all up in arms about. Read the whole story.

My problem with saying an LEO can remove my weapon for his safety is who then is responsible for protecting me? The courts have said the LEO isn't.

tiki
06-02-2011, 1:31 PM
Wow...in a past world your title would have been Torie...

Did you mean Tory?


If you do not understand what is happening, please do give up my rights becasue you don't do anything wrong....

Did you mean "don't give up my rights" and "because"?



in this day and age I bet you really are doing something wrong and you just don't know it.

I have to disagree with you, again.


My rights are a hell of a lot more important than officer safety...


I think the officer would disagree with you, as would most people. This falls under reasonable restrictions.


if they are concerned and can't respect my rights....they can change their line of work more easily than I can get my rights back.


What?


Every dictator loves people like you, the silent majority who feels - because they are doing nothing wrong - whatever the government wants to do is OK. Frankly you are the type of person that tyrannies are built upon...funny you post here but don't understand history.

Well, you certainly don't know me, and, none of the dictators you surveyed know me either, but, I can assure you, they wouldn't be too happy with me as a subject. But, I'm not going to argue that point with you. Actually, I'm not going to argue anything with you. It's bad enough trying to read through your spelling mistakes and incomplete sentences, without having to read about my lack of historical perspective.

I wish you the best in life. Good luck my friend.

vincewarde
06-02-2011, 2:27 PM
Personally, I can totally understand the need for an officer to take control of, and inspect a firearm that is in plain view and accessible to the driver or passengers. Absent the gun coming back as stolen, or the check on the owner coming back as ineligible to possess, the gun should be returned at the end of the traffic stop.

What I am not clear about is: Does this ruling allow the to seize legally possessed firearms?

scarville
06-02-2011, 2:56 PM
So, so true. That is why I wear this all the time.
http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/8496657f-ef19-482b-ad4e-c44ebb200fa9.jpg
You obviously don't know a thing about modern mind control. It is not done using satellites or radio broadcasts. Not directly anyways. That is obsolete technology and the old standby of aluminum foil shielding is useless. Now it is done using subliminal messages in your cell phones combined with minute doses of psychotropic molecules that readily bind to acetylcholine receptors. The agents are ingested and absorbed in the small intestines but are masked in the body by metabolites of aspartame or fructose.

BobB35
06-02-2011, 3:16 PM
Did you mean Tory?

Tory or Tories what's the diff?

Did you mean "don't give up my rights" and "because"?




I have to disagree with you, again.



I think the officer would disagree with you, as would most people. This falls under reasonable restrictions.

I am sure the officer would disagree with me, but it doesn't change the point.


What?

Reread what I wrote....if you don't understand I suggest reading comprehension is more important than spelling.....


Well, you certainly don't know me, and, none of the dictators you surveyed know me either, but, I can assure you, they wouldn't be too happy with me as a subject. But, I'm not going to argue that point with you. Actually, I'm not going to argue anything with you. It's bad enough trying to read through your spelling mistakes and incomplete sentences, without having to read about my lack of historical perspective.

I wish you the best in life. Good luck my friend.

Ah yes the grammar viet cong is out in force. Sorry my spelling and punctuation don't meet your standards. As usual though you have no reply to the argument....typical.

kcbrown
06-02-2011, 4:14 PM
People, please be consistent with your arguments.

You cannot, on one hand, argue that we cannot be disarmed for the purpose of satisfying the government's interest in "safety", while simultaneously on the other hand argue that it's perfectly fine for an agent of the government to forcibly disarm you to satisfy his own interest in his safety. Those arguments are mutually exclusive.

The bottom line is that a police officer is an agent of the government. Agents of the government are subordinate to our rights in a free society. They willingly take on the burdens of the job, which includes exposing themselves to risk, when they sign up for it.


Most cops are good people doing a tough job. But that does not change the fact that the exercise of a fundamental right cannot be made subordinate to the convenience of the government or its agents. Ever.

choprzrul
06-02-2011, 5:19 PM
People, please be consistent with your arguments.

You cannot, on one hand, argue that we cannot be disarmed for the purpose of satisfying the government's interest in "safety", while simultaneously on the other hand argue that it's perfectly fine for an agent of the government to forcibly disarm you to satisfy his own interest in his safety. Those arguments are mutually exclusive.

The bottom line is that a police officer is an agent of the government. Agents of the government are subordinate to our rights in a free society. They willingly take on the burdens of the job, which includes exposing themselves to risk, when they sign up for it.


Most cops are good people doing a tough job. But that does not change the fact that the exercise of a fundamental right cannot be made subordinate to the convenience of the government or its agents. Ever.

^^Yep^^what he said^^

.

tiki
06-02-2011, 7:50 PM
...

Apocalypsenerd
06-02-2011, 7:50 PM
Outstanding bit of writing there.

People, please be consistent with your arguments.

You cannot, on one hand, argue that we cannot be disarmed for the purpose of satisfying the government's interest in "safety", while simultaneously on the other hand argue that it's perfectly fine for an agent of the government to forcibly disarm you to satisfy his own interest in his safety. Those arguments are mutually exclusive.

The bottom line is that a police officer is an agent of the government. Agents of the government are subordinate to our rights in a free society. They willingly take on the burdens of the job, which includes exposing themselves to risk, when they sign up for it.


Most cops are good people doing a tough job. But that does not change the fact that the exercise of a fundamental right cannot be made subordinate to the convenience of the government or its agents. Ever.

Citizen 14
06-02-2011, 9:39 PM
I'm pretty sure you're required to inform if the officer asks. I think every state has that law.

Perhaps some states do, but in New Mexico your car is an extension of your home. You don't have to tell the police what you have in your home.
So we will just have to agree to disagree. :)

Bobby Hated
06-03-2011, 6:20 AM
for me what it comes down to is its fine if a LEO wants to disarm you to run your name and determine there are no warrants for you, that no crime has been committed, and that the firearm is legally possessed. his safety and yours makes him disarming you ok in my book.

but theres no reason for a LEO to keep your firearm after everything has beeen determined to be on the up and up. it seems that this ruling would allow him to keep your property after it has beem determined there is no reason for him to do so. that bothers me.

tiki
06-03-2011, 6:41 AM
People, please be consistent with your arguments.

You cannot, on one hand, argue that we cannot be disarmed for the purpose of satisfying the government's interest in "safety", while simultaneously on the other hand argue that it's perfectly fine for an agent of the government to forcibly disarm you to satisfy his own interest in his safety. Those arguments are mutually exclusive.

The bottom line is that a police officer is an agent of the government. Agents of the government are subordinate to our rights in a free society. They willingly take on the burdens of the job, which includes exposing themselves to risk, when they sign up for it.


Most cops are good people doing a tough job. But that does not change the fact that the exercise of a fundamental right cannot be made subordinate to the convenience of the government or its agents. Ever.

It's not inconsistent. You are comparing a permanent ban to a temporary relinquishing of your firearm. I don't know where this notion of forcible disarming came about.

I can certainly argue for the right to keep and bear arms and also say that I'm ok with checking my firearm in my baggage instead of carrying it on a plane or temporarily unloading my firearm and placing it on the hood of my car when I'm getting pulled over. It's in the interest of safety and I'm just one of those people who is ok with a reasonable restriction.

I feel that if someone is driving around with a firearm on the seat or floor of their vehicle, and the police pull them over for whatever law they were breaking, then it is ok for the police to temporarily secure that firearm. If someone doesn't agree with that, then, keep the firearm in its holster, case or container. It's pretty simple.

I do sympathize with your position that your rights should be absolute. It's an argument I hear often, but, that isn't how things work in our world. And the notion that since a police officer accepts a dangerous job, he or she should be afforded no protection is also not realistic.

tiki
06-03-2011, 6:44 AM
it seems that this ruling would allow him to keep your property after it has beem determined there is no reason for him to do so. that bothers me.

This ruling applied to a felon, if I read it correctly.

ccmc
06-03-2011, 7:04 AM
You obviously don't know a thing about modern mind control. It is not done using satellites or radio broadcasts. Not directly anyways. That is obsolete technology and the old standby of aluminum foil shielding is useless. Now it is done using subliminal messages in your cell phones combined with minute doses of psychotropic molecules that readily bind to acetylcholine receptors. The agents are ingested and absorbed in the small intestines but are masked in the body by metabolites of aspartame or fructose.

Nope. It's as simply as spousal nagging :eek:

ccmc
06-03-2011, 7:08 AM
Perhaps some states do, but in New Mexico your car is an extension of your home. You don't have to tell the police what you have in your home.
So we will just have to agree to disagree. :)

Here in FL your car is also an extension of your home when it comes to Castle Doctrine. But when I took my CWFL course the instructor said you don't have to inform the police if you have a weapon in the car unless they specifically ask at which point you have to answer truthfully. Of course if it's concealed (which in FL it has to be) they will generally never have a reason to ask.

Coded-Dude
06-03-2011, 7:18 AM
this ruling came about because of a felon...but it applies to all people with firearms.

tiki
06-03-2011, 7:32 AM
this ruling came about because of a felon...but it applies to all people with firearms.

Agreed, but the reason they kept the firearm was he was a felon and was arrested. But, I did only read it quickly.

PatriotnMore
06-03-2011, 7:42 AM
Excellent, I almost stood and saluted you, while reaching for my constitution. Eloquent and poignant that so many accept and don't understand what freedom is. Through their "ideas" and "feelings", they allow through their compliance, our rights to be taken piecemeal through the decisions of Judges who should know better, and have been entrusted with our freedoms. Exactly why we are a Republic and not a Democracy. When will we have men of honor, understanding, and the love of freedom and the constitution, soundly entrenched in our legal system.

People, please be consistent with your arguments.

You cannot, on one hand, argue that we cannot be disarmed for the purpose of satisfying the government's interest in "safety", while simultaneously on the other hand argue that it's perfectly fine for an agent of the government to forcibly disarm you to satisfy his own interest in his safety. Those arguments are mutually exclusive.

The bottom line is that a police officer is an agent of the government. Agents of the government are subordinate to our rights in a free society. They willingly take on the burdens of the job, which includes exposing themselves to risk, when they sign up for it.


Most cops are good people doing a tough job. But that does not change the fact that the exercise of a fundamental right cannot be made subordinate to the convenience of the government or its agents. Ever.

tenpercentfirearms
06-03-2011, 8:06 AM
People, please be consistent with your arguments.

You cannot, on one hand, argue that we cannot be disarmed for the purpose of satisfying the government's interest in "safety", while simultaneously on the other hand argue that it's perfectly fine for an agent of the government to forcibly disarm you to satisfy his own interest in his safety. Those arguments are mutually exclusive.

The bottom line is that a police officer is an agent of the government. Agents of the government are subordinate to our rights in a free society. They willingly take on the burdens of the job, which includes exposing themselves to risk, when they sign up for it.


Most cops are good people doing a tough job. But that does not change the fact that the exercise of a fundamental right cannot be made subordinate to the convenience of the government or its agents. Ever.

Sorry, you are not being consistent. Agents of the government are also citizens. Citizens have the same rights as you and I. Your statement that a citizen's rights must be risked when they willingly accept the job as a government agent is contradictory. If we could argue that a police officer lessens their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a public official, then why not argue that you lessen your same rights when you become an agent of the public roads with your driver's license?

Let me quote you.Licensed drivers of a government sponsored privileged are subordinate to our rights in a free society. They willingly take on the burdens of driving, which includes exposing themselves to risk, when they sign up for it. So if you must surrender your firearm temporarily while driving, that is your choice for driving.

So can inmates still be disarmed? Can the government fine me at all since they are subordinate to my right to pursue happiness and trying to take my money when I violate the law is a violation of my rights? Clearly you have forgotten the social contract. Your rights are not absolute. If they were, then there would be no punishment for criminals who violate your rights. Your rights can be forfeited for violations of the law. To argue otherwise would void the basic premise of a republic as we would not be a society of laws, but of lawlessness.

You have clearly taken this example to an extreme. If you are violating the law and get pulled over, usually you are violating the rights of others, hence there being a law prohibiting it (we all know some laws have nothing to do with preserving our rights, but with enslaving us, but we have to fight those on their own level). In the course of that investigation, a reasonable person could conclude you might become agitated or upset about being pulled over. If your firearm is in plain view, then it makes sense that an agent of the government in order to protect their own safety and the safety of others remove that firearm from the equation. If you don't want your firearm removed, then make sure it is concealed, don't break the law, and don't drive.

Guns are not evil and they don't make you do stupid things, that is not what I am saying. However, if in the course of the investigation it becomes necessary to place you under arrest or seize your property, what if you disagree and resist? Again removing the firearm from the equation is a reasonable expectation for public and officer safety.

This in no way is going to limit your right to keep and bear arms to overthrow an oppressive government. That is unless there were enough government agents to pull every single armed American over at the same time and take all of our guns for the duration of a traffic stop then suddenly say, "Surprise! Tyranny! Gotcha!" :rolleyes:

Cops have rights too. They are not forfeited because you broke the law. Recognize this and reduce your chances of being disarmed for the short duration of a traffic stop or any stop for that matter.

Or continue this silly notion that accepting certain jobs limits your rights which is directly contradictory to your stand that our rights cannot be taken away. Or are police special people with special powers and not regular citizens and hence must accept they must die for the greater good of your freedom. Which if true means we can expect you to die for the greater good of their freedom. You can't have it both ways bro, but I am the one being inconsistent. Right.

smn
06-03-2011, 8:30 AM
The Georgia Supreme Court reversed an opinion in 2008 (http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/statevjones.htm) in which now the officer does not have carte blanch authority to seize all weapons in a traffic stop. This case involved suppression of drugs found when the officer retrieved a rifle from a vehicle as was his 'policy' and did not have consent from the driver:
Georgia decisions agree that in order to justify a search of a vehicle for weapons, some conduct on the part of the occupants such as furtive movements or other indications of danger to the officer must be shown, and the officer must have an "objectively reasonable" belief that the occupants of a vehicle are "potentially dangerous." Silva v. State, 278 Ga. 506, 508 (604 SE2d 171) (2004) (driver leaned under seat as if to conceal weapon and drove recklessly while in that position, then offered implausible explanation for his conduct.) Here, no evidence was presented of furtive movements or danger; in fact, the officer candidly acknowledged that the search was merely his standard procedure because any firearm might be stolen. On its face, as noted by Jones, this policy justifies the search of any vehicle occupied by hunters or sport shooters with their firearms, or any pickup truck with a rifle or shotgun on the rear window rack. This is precisely the danger of "carte blanche authority to `secure' all weapons during a routine traffic stop," noted by the special concurrence in Megesi, supra, 277 Ga. App. at 860.

I think the NM opinion is poorly written. Very poorly written. As was noted by a previous poster, the vehicle was stopped for an expired tag. Gun was seen in plain view. The occupants were ordered out of the car (legal). Officer seizes gun (Long seizure?) Passenger confessed it was his. Passenger signs consent (epic fail, yes). Felon goes to jail.

I believe a few things are out of order, specifically the seizure prior to consent. This may have been an effort for the cop to cover his own tracks. There may be an Gant violation here since the felon was out of the car and separated from the weapon (the gun isn't evidence of a tag violation and the cop had it). There may have been a Johnson violation (again from AZ) since the passenger wasn't dangerous. I can see a stronger indication of a Long violation since the officer seized the weapon before determining the passenger was a felon.

US v. Dudley (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2189118117327809821) was an interesting case, but that involved an illegal stop based on an anonymous tip.
Martin's impetus to investigate the Dudleys was a radio call alerting him to the presence of two people at the truckstop in possession of some guns. Of course the possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime unless you happen to be a convicted felon, the firearms are otherwise illegal, or you are not licensed to possess the gun. Martin, presumably not clairvoyant, could not have known, and did not know, the Dudleys and their guns met all three of these criteria. In fact he testified he had absolutely no knowledge, or suspicion, that the Dudleys were engaged in any criminal activity until he discovered the first sawed-off shotgun.
Officer Martin, in the above case, did not have consent or a warrant to search the Dudley's broken down vehicle. It's an interesting case, but important in the regard a federal court properly evaluated the legality of the stop and the Terry requirements for a seizure resulting in the suppression of the weapons.

The proper Terry analysis requires the officer to have RAS the subject is armed and dangerous. I didn't see this in the NM instance.

For those that think citizen disarmament during a traffic stop is amicable then ask your wife if she's comfortable with an officer disarming her, writing up a ticket, and then sexually assaulting her. I don't think her having her gun returned in pieces will be of much use to her then.

Just having to answer in the affirmative you've got a weapon already gives the upper hand to the good/bad officer. Your right to remain silent isn't seized. You can keep your Bible during the stop. Some states are afraid of cell phones and their recording capabilities.

Also, there are cop imposters out there, and now with full knowledge of this law we might see an uptick in crimes using the flawed NM opinion against lawfully armed traffic law violators. Someone mentioned NM is the CA of the southwest... California will release 46,000 criminals soon. Think about that.

There should be equal application of the law. As lawful gun carrier we should not have to live with constant suspicion we are dangerous just because we are armed. With the NM opinion in hand just how long do you think it'll be applied to someone walking on the street separated from their weapon just because they're armed? Do you think the Alamogordo opinion will survive that long?

scarville
06-03-2011, 8:33 AM
It's not inconsistent. You are comparing a permanent ban to a temporary relinquishing of your firearm. I don't know where this notion of forcible disarming came about.
Try refusing to relinquish your firearms and see if there is force involved. You may willingly submit but that does not mean there is no threat of force behind the order.

PatriotnMore
06-03-2011, 8:45 AM
Excellent thoughts and opinions. Officer safety, or ANY one person(s) can never trump the constitution, or our rights.

The Georgia Supreme Court reversed an opinion in 2008 (http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/statevjones.htm) in which now the officer does not have carte blanch authority to seize all weapons in a traffic stop. This case involved suppression of drugs found when the officer retrieved a rifle from a vehicle as was his 'policy' and did not have consent from the driver:


I think the NM opinion is poorly written. Very poorly written. As was noted by a previous poster, the vehicle was stopped for an expired tag. Gun was seen in plain view. The occupants were ordered out of the car (legal). Officer seizes gun (Long seizure?) Passenger confessed it was his. Passenger signs consent (epic fail, yes). Felon goes to jail.

I believe a few things are out of order, specifically the seizure prior to consent. This may have been an effort for the cop to cover his own tracks. There may be an Gant violation here since the felon was out of the car and separated from the weapon (the gun isn't evidence of a tag violation and the cop had it). There may have been a Johnson violation (again from AZ) since the passenger wasn't dangerous. I can see a stronger indication of a Long violation since the officer seized the weapon before determining the passenger was a felon.

US v. Dudley (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2189118117327809821) was an interesting case, but that involved an illegal stop based on an anonymous tip.

Officer Martin, in the above case, did not have consent or a warrant to search the Dudley's broken down vehicle. It's an interesting case, but important in the regard a federal court properly evaluated the legality of the stop and the Terry requirements for a seizure resulting in the suppression of the weapons.

The proper Terry analysis requires the officer to have RAS the subject is armed and dangerous. I didn't see this in the NM instance.

For those that think citizen disarmament during a traffic stop is amicable then ask your wife if she's comfortable with an officer disarming her, writing up a ticket, and then sexually assaulting her. I don't think her having her gun returned in pieces will be of much use to her then.

Just having to answer in the affirmative you've got a weapon already gives the upper hand to the good/bad officer. Your right to remain silent isn't seized. You can keep your Bible during the stop. Some states are afraid of cell phones and their recording capabilities.

Also, there are cop imposters out there, and now with full knowledge of this law we might see an uptick in crimes using the flawed NM opinion against lawfully armed traffic law violators. Someone mentioned NM is the CA of the southwest... California will release 46,000 criminals soon. Think about that.

There should be equal application of the law. As lawful gun carrier we should not have to live with constant suspicion we are dangerous just because we are armed. With the NM opinion in hand just how long do you think it'll be applied to someone walking on the street separated from their weapon just because they're armed? Do you think the Alamogordo opinion will survive that long?

chris12
06-03-2011, 8:59 AM
I can certainly argue for the right to keep and bear arms and also say that I'm ok with checking my firearm in my baggage instead of carrying it on a plane or temporarily unloading my firearm and placing it on the hood of my car when I'm getting pulled over. It's in the interest of safety and I'm just one of those people who is ok with a reasonable restriction.
I have a completely different view of reasonable restrictions than you do. To me reasonable is govt not allowing people to walk around with guns in hand, fingers on trigger, pointing at anyone for any reason. Unreasonable is them having the option to take a gun from you during all interactions. I'm sure it would increase officer safety if all traffic stops were handled like felony hot stops with all passengers ordered from car at gunpoint and cuffed. Why not afford the officers that level of safety?

Sorry, you are not being consistent. Agents of the government are also citizens. Citizens have the same rights as you and I. Your statement that a citizen's rights must be risked when they willingly accept the job as a government agent is contradictory. If we could argue that a police officer lessens their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a public official, then why not argue that you lessen your same rights when you become an agent of the public roads with your driver's license?
I totally agreed with kcbrown, but that is a great point that has gotten me thinking some more. :confused:

You have clearly taken this example to an extreme. If you are violating the law and get pulled over, usually you are violating the rights of others, hence there being a law prohibiting it (we all know some laws have nothing to do with preserving our rights, but with enslaving us, but we have to fight those on their own level). In the course of that investigation, a reasonable person could conclude you might become agitated or upset about being pulled over. If your firearm is in plain view, then it makes sense that an agent of the government in order to protect their own safety and the safety of others remove that firearm from the equation. If you don't want your firearm removed, then make sure it is concealed, don't break the law, and don't drive.
You can easily be stopped without violating a law. An accident that isn't your fault, a report of a car matching yours, officer thinks he sees something illegal. Outside the car, you could be stopped just for open carrying because you are now armed and dangerous.

Guns are not evil and they don't make you do stupid things, that is not what I am saying. However, if in the course of the investigation it becomes necessary to place you under arrest or seize your property, what if you disagree and resist? Again removing the firearm from the equation is a reasonable expectation for public and officer safety.
As I responded to tiki's post, why not just tase/mace and place everyone in cuffs immediately so they might not resist later?

Or continue this silly notion that accepting certain jobs limits your rights which is directly contradictory to your stand that our rights cannot be taken away. Or are police special people with special powers and not regular citizens and hence must accept they must die for the greater good of your freedom. Which if true means we can expect you to die for the greater good of their freedom. You can't have it both ways bro, but I am the one being inconsistent. Right.
You do agree to loose some rights when taking a job. USPS workers can't carry at work.

Coded-Dude
06-03-2011, 9:14 AM
Sorry, you are not being consistent. Agents of the government are also citizens. Citizens have the same rights as you and I. Your statement that a citizen's rights must be risked when they willingly accept the job as a government agent is contradictory. If we could argue that a police officer lessens their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a public official, then why not argue that you lessen your same rights when you become an agent of the public roads with your driver's license?



I totally agreed with kcbrown, but that is a great point that has gotten me thinking some more. :confused:

Yes they are still citizens, but the court ruled that their safety, as government officials, trumps the safety of private citizens. Which is what many of us disagree with. Equal Rights should mean just that. There is definitely a fine line to be crossed with regards to protecting the "peace" and trampling rights. They("government officials") should have the SAME rights....no more, no less.


Very good points by many people in this thread. It is certainly an interesting subject.

tiki
06-03-2011, 9:36 AM
I have a completely different view of reasonable restrictions than you do. I'm sure it would increase officer safety if all traffic stops were handled like felony hot stops with all passengers ordered from car at gunpoint and cuffed. Why not afford the officers that level of safety?

Because we allow them to secure a firearm which is out in plain view, but you bring up a good point. This same scenario came to mind when I was posting earlier. If the courts held that a firearm in plain view could not be secured by the officer, I could see a policy of having a driver step out of the car when a firearm is visible. Instead of removing your firearm from the car, they remove you from the car. Now you have a choice, get out of the car and leave your firearm in the car, or, reach for it as you get out of the car to take it with you. ;)
I'd rather sit in my car and let the officer secure the firearm, but, I don't have this issue because I don't drive around with my firearms in plain view.


You can easily be stopped without violating a law. An accident that isn't your fault, a report of a car matching yours, officer thinks he sees something illegal.

Still, if the firearm is out of view then you don't have an issue.


As I responded to tiki's post, why not just tase/mace and place everyone in cuffs immediately so they might not resist later?


That would get more people to get the bluetooth headsets for their phones. :) I think the tase/mace is a bit extreme, but, again, I think it is entirely plausible that an officer would ask you to step out of your vehicle if he sees a firearm in plain view. Again, would you step out and leave it in your car, effectively disarming you, or, would you reach for it to take it out of the car with you?


You do agree to loose some rights when taking a job. USPS workers can't carry at work.

I can't carry at work either, but, private sector employers aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment. It's funny that some people are so worried about handing over their firearm for a 10 minute traffic stop once every few years, but will spend 8-10 hours a day at work unarmed.
Everyone has a right to their opinion and I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, just what my view of reasonable is. Now, when the firearm is out of view, that's a different story.

chris12
06-03-2011, 11:54 AM
Because we allow them to secure a firearm which is out in plain view, but you bring up a good point. This same scenario came to mind when I was posting earlier. If the courts held that a firearm in plain view could not be secured by the officer, I could see a policy of having a driver step out of the car when a firearm is visible. Instead of removing your firearm from the car, they remove you from the car. Now you have a choice, get out of the car and leave your firearm in the car, or, reach for it as you get out of the car to take it with you. ;)
I'd rather sit in my car and let the officer secure the firearm, but, I don't have this issue because I don't drive around with my firearms in plain view.
Because we allow them to secure a firearm which is out in plain view is not a good response to why not afford the officers a higher level of security.
Removing the person from the car would have worked to disarm him in the case, though if I'm in a front seat and a gun is on the floorboard of the back seat I'm pretty well disarmed already. It doesn't do much if you are open carrying in a holster (car or not).


Still, if the firearm is out of view then you don't have an issue.
As long as your speech/newspaper/demonstration/poster/etc is out of view then you don't have an issue either, but you also don't have a right.



I think the tase/mace is a bit extreme, but, again, I think it is entirely plausible that an officer would ask you to step out of your vehicle if he sees a firearm in plain view. Again, would you step out and leave it in your car, effectively disarming you, or, would you reach for it to take it out of the car with you?
tase/mace intended as extreme :) (I'm also not sure of the use of tase as a verb), what if gun is in a holster, what if you bring your fists with you as you get out of the car, why not afford the officer more safety by letting them cuff you, or by wearing cuffs every time you leave your house. I'm sure that would increase officer safety.


I can't carry at work either, but, private sector employers aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment. It's funny that some people are so worried about handing over their firearm for a 10 minute traffic stop once every few years, but will spend 8-10 hours a day at work unarmed.
I can't carry at work either, but carrying at work is a choice I can make. In regards to work, if I decide I want to carry then I quit, my choice (assuming I could carry anywhere outside my house in our wonderful state, but that's a different issue). In regards to a traffic stop, or LOC, or any other officer interaction, I no longer have a choice to carry. That is the problem.

Everyone has a right to their opinion and I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, just what my view of reasonable is.
I enjoy the discussion.

PhalSe
06-03-2011, 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
"People, please be consistent with your arguments.

You cannot, on one hand, argue that we cannot be disarmed for the purpose of satisfying the government's interest in "safety", while simultaneously on the other hand argue that it's perfectly fine for an agent of the government to forcibly disarm you to satisfy his own interest in his safety. Those arguments are mutually exclusive.

The bottom line is that a police officer is an agent of the government. Agents of the government are subordinate to our rights in a free society. They willingly take on the burdens of the job, which includes exposing themselves to risk, when they sign up for it.


Most cops are good people doing a tough job. But that does not change the fact that the exercise of a fundamental right cannot be made subordinate to the convenience of the government or its agents. Ever."

Responding Quote:
Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms
"Sorry, you are not being consistent. Agents of the government are also citizens. Citizens have the same rights as you and I. Your statement that a citizen's rights must be risked when they willingly accept the job as a government agent is contradictory. If we could argue that a police officer lessens their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a public official, then why not argue that you lessen your same rights when you become an agent of the public roads with your driver's license? "

This argument is weak. Officers as agents of the government are not relinquishing their citizens right to self defense if they do not disarm a citizen during a traffic stop because they are still able to defend themselves. They, unlike other less equal citizens, are always armed and specifically during a traffic stop they clearly have the upper hand in the interaction.

I'm not saying they should never do so, but they cannot assume that an armed citizen is automatically a citizen who is going to attack them. This is clearly punishing a citizen for something they MAY do. This case is a bad example because if the office had known the defendent was a felon before seizing the weapon it would clearly have been justified. However the ruling seems to state, i feel incorrectly, that it is ALWAYS ok to assume an armed citizen is a danger to an officer when that is clearly not the case.

Coded-Dude
06-03-2011, 12:34 PM
A few quotes from some of our founding fathers:

Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms.

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms . . .

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms.

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms...

And it is no less true, that personal security and private property rest entirely upon the wisdom, the stability, and the integrity of the courts of justice.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. -quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book

sandman21
06-03-2011, 12:42 PM
A few quotes from some of our founding fathers:

The BENJAMIN FRANKLIN quote is not his.

Coded-Dude
06-03-2011, 1:08 PM
its not? Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor - November 11, 1755 (http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=6&page=238a)

tiki
06-03-2011, 1:33 PM
Because we allow them to secure a firearm which is out in plain view is not a good response to why not afford the officers a higher level of security.


Sure it is. If the cop can secure the firearm there is no need to tase/mace or remove the driver :)
If the courts don't allow the securing of the firearm, then the police would just pull you out of the car if they see a gun and secure you instead. Given a choice, I would rather have the firearm secured instead of me. The argument people had earlier was if you give the gun up, then you don't have a way to protect yourself if all of a sudden someone attacked you while you were disarmed and the cop did nothing because he isn't required to do anything :rolleyes:. But, if you are secured, there isn't much you can do anyway. I would much rather be sitting in my car where I can at least get out to defend myself with my hands. But, some people would have you believe that there are a roving band of bad cops out there and you may need your firearm handy in case the cop flips out and tries to kill you while writing you a speeding ticket. :confused:


Removing the person from the car would have worked to disarm him in the case, though if I'm in a front seat and a gun is on the floorboard of the back seat I'm pretty well disarmed already. It doesn't do much if you are open carrying in a holster (car or not).


That's why I I don't know why it's such a big deal to people. If the gun is on the floorboard of the backseat, it is useless for protection anyway. So, let the cop hold it for 10 minutes.


As long as your speech/newspaper/demonstration/poster/etc is out of view then you don't have an issue either, but you also don't have a right.


Yeah, but we are talking about a weapon vs. speech here, and, temporary vs. permanent. You can't go into a courtroom and talk whenever you want to so is that a violation of your right to free speech?
If you really want to talk about your rights, try demonstrating out in front of the DNC or RNC where they put up a one or two mile buffer zone around the event. Your rights are limited there too. You can peacefully assemble, but, not there.
Going back to that traffic stop, most of the time if the cop tells you to be quiet, you are. So, is that a violation of free speech? I'm quiet because I want the encounter to go better for me. The same reason why I would let the cop secure my firearm, I don't want to get out of my car and get cuffed for 10 minutes.



tase/mace intended as extreme


Understood. :)


what if you bring your fists with you as you get out of the car, why not afford the officer more safety by letting them cuff you, or by wearing cuffs every time you leave your house. I'm sure that would increase officer safety.


It would increase officer safety, but now we are going beyond (way beyond) reasonable. :)
I have watched many episodes of Cops where they handcuff someone and say that it is for their protection. What you do during that encounter dictates how that encounter would go. I'm just saying that having a firearm in plain view will alter the flow of events.


I can't carry at work either, but carrying at work is a choice I can make. In regards to work, if I decide I want to carry then I quit, my choice (assuming I could carry anywhere outside my house in our wonderful state, but that's a different issue). In regards to a traffic stop, or LOC, or any other officer interaction, I no longer have a choice to carry. That is the problem.


You have a choice with the traffic stop, keep the firearm hidden. :) I've been in the presence of police many times with my firearm concealed and it wasn't a problem because I wasn't breaking any laws and didn't give them a reason to come over and investigate me.

LOC is a different animal because that currently isn't legal.


I enjoy the discussion.

Me too. It's nice to have a debate with someone and not have it degrade to personal attacks. Thanks.

sandman21
06-03-2011, 1:35 PM
its not? Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor - November 11, 1755 (http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=6&page=238a)

Nope Richard Jackson is the author (http://futureofthebook.com/franklin-quoted-by-minsky/)

Coded-Dude
06-03-2011, 1:56 PM
Nope Richard Jackson is the author (http://futureofthebook.com/franklin-quoted-by-minsky/)

thanks for that. :D learn something new everyday.

sandman21
06-03-2011, 2:03 PM
thanks for that. :D learn something new everyday.

No problem

chris12
06-03-2011, 3:17 PM
Sure it is. If the cop can secure the firearm there is no need to tase/mace or remove the driver :)
There is no need to secure the firearm during a peaceful traffic stop, just as there is no need to tase/mace someone during a peaceful traffic stop!!!

if you are secured, there isn't much you can do anyway. I would much rather be sitting in my car where I can at least get out to defend myself with my hands.
False dichotomy, I would rather be sitting in my car with my firearm peacefully resolving anything.

But, some people would have you believe that there are a roving band of bad cops out there and you may need your firearm handy in case the cop flips out and tries to kill you while writing you a speeding ticket. :confused:
With that logic as long as there is no roving band of thugs/rapists/murders out there we should just let the gov secure our weapons for us.

That's why I I don't know why it's such a big deal to people. If the gun is on the floorboard of the backseat, it is useless for protection anyway. So, let the cop hold it for 10 minutes.
Granted, the defendant was an idiot in the situation, but the precedence from the ruling affects people who legally LOC in a car in New Mexico.

Yeah, but we are talking about a weapon vs. speech here, and, temporary vs. permanent. You can't go into a courtroom and talk whenever you want to so is that a violation of your right to free speech?
If you really want to talk about your rights, try demonstrating out in front of the DNC or RNC where they put up a one or two mile buffer zone around the event. Your rights are limited there too. You can peacefully assemble, but, not there.
My google foo isn't working, but I'm pretty sure the gov argued weapon worse than speech in Heller (possibly McDonald) and the supreme court rejected the idea that 2A was more dangerous than 1A. Just because 1A gets violated doesn't make it ok to violate 2A. Also, you have more of a choice in where to protest vs being pulled over.

Going back to that traffic stop, most of the time if the cop tells you to be quiet, you are. So, is that a violation of free speech? I'm quiet because I want the encounter to go better for me. The same reason why I would let the cop secure my firearm, I don't want to get out of my car and get cuffed for 10 minutes.
Telling you to be quiet may/may not be backed by force, and in some cases it should be a violation of free speech. Given a suggestion by an officer, I would likely be quiet, though I probably would have been quiet before the suggestion. If you want to let a cop secure your firearm, by all means do so. I'm just saying everyone else should have their own choice.

It would increase officer safety, but now we are going beyond (way beyond) reasonable. :)
Sweet we agree!

I have watched many episodes of Cops where they handcuff someone and say that it is for their protection. What you do during that encounter dictates how that encounter would go. I'm just saying that having a firearm in plain view will alter the flow of events.
I've seen that, not sure I agree in all cases. Yes, as with everything else in life. Agree, but it shouldn't let the officer take the weapon just because it is plain view.

You have a choice with the traffic stop, keep the firearm hidden. :) I've been in the presence of police many times with my firearm concealed and it wasn't a problem because I wasn't breaking any laws and didn't give them a reason to come over and investigate me.

LOC is a different animal because that currently isn't legal.
My personal preference is generally to conceal, but why should anyone who prefers open carry be treated different legally. I'm pretty sure LOC is/'still kind of is' legal in New Mexico. If I could legally (stupid CA), I'm sure I would choose to LOC on long car trips due to comfort over concealed carry.

kcbrown
06-03-2011, 3:29 PM
I feel that if someone is driving around with a firearm on the seat or floor of their vehicle, and the police pull them over for whatever law they were breaking, then it is ok for the police to temporarily secure that firearm. If someone doesn't agree with that, then, keep the firearm in its holster, case or container. It's pretty simple.


Well, let's talk about this for a moment.

Are you saying that a police officer would be more comfortable with a firearm if it's in its holster being worn in plain view than if it's on the back seat of the car? Quite clearly, the firearm in its holster on the person is much more immediately accessible to its possessor than the one in the back seat.


No, what you're talking about here is disarming the citizen during the stop. It's as simple as that.



I do sympathize with your position that your rights should be absolute. It's an argument I hear often, but, that isn't how things work in our world. And the notion that since a police officer accepts a dangerous job, he or she should be afforded no protection is also not realistic.

I'm not saying the police officer should be afforded no protection at all. I'm saying that he should be afforded no protection that intrudes into the rights of the citizenry. He can wear body armor and take other defensive measures all he wants, so long as his actions do not intrude into the rights of the detainee.

kcbrown
06-03-2011, 3:42 PM
Sorry, you are not being consistent. Agents of the government are also citizens. Citizens have the same rights as you and I. Your statement that a citizen's rights must be risked when they willingly accept the job as a government agent is contradictory.


No, it's not contradictory.

Agents of the government are also citizens while they are not performing their duties. While they're performing their duties, they are agents of the government. An agent of the government is, in his capacity, the government. By saying that he has the same rights as the rest of us while acting as that agent, you are saying that the government itself has the same rights as the rest of us.

And that is quite clearly not the case, for the government serves the people. It is not an equal to the people.


But even if we take your argument as truth here, the fact of the matter is that the police officer cannot forcibly disarm the citizen by issuing a command to the citizen that has threat of force behind it, as that is a violation of the citizen's rights. The police officer may be entitled to safety, but not any more than you or I. By arguing that the police officer has the right to forcibly disarm the citizen, you are implicitly arguing that any citizen has the same rights when interacting with another citizen.


So: either police officers are citizens with equal rights with the rest of us while performing their duties, in which case they may not violate the rights of the citizenry any more than any other citizen may, or they're not. Which is it? If the latter, then it must be that the rights of the citizen override the rights of the police officer, for if it is the other way around then the government is no longer subordinate to the people, but the other way around.

tenpercentfirearms
06-03-2011, 7:47 PM
No, it's not contradictory.

Agents of the government are also citizens while they are not performing their duties. While they're performing their duties, they are agents of the government. An agent of the government is, in his capacity, the government. By saying that he has the same rights as the rest of us while acting as that agent, you are saying that the government itself has the same rights as the rest of us.

And that is quite clearly not the case, for the government serves the people. It is not an equal to the people.


But even if we take your argument as truth here, the fact of the matter is that the police officer cannot forcibly disarm the citizen by issuing a command to the citizen that has threat of force behind it, as that is a violation of the citizen's rights. The police officer may be entitled to safety, but not any more than you or I. By arguing that the police officer has the right to forcibly disarm the citizen, you are implicitly arguing that any citizen has the same rights when interacting with another citizen.


So: either police officers are citizens with equal rights with the rest of us while performing their duties, in which case they may not violate the rights of the citizenry any more than any other citizen may, or they're not. Which is it? If the latter, then it must be that the rights of the citizen override the rights of the police officer, for if it is the other way around then the government is no longer subordinate to the people, but the other way around.
So what do we do with inmates? Why can we disarm them? Is it because they were found guilty in a court of law?

So if I shoot my next door neighbor, does the cop have a right to disarm me? Yes? Why? Because he witnessed me commit a crime?

So then why can't the officer disarm a person they are investigating for criminal or civil violations? You speed and you are armed, how is that any different than shooting someone and being armed?

Again, all of this is based off of the fact that the police are stopping you for some sort of violation. It is clear that the police cannot walk up to a random, armed person and demand they disarm. They need reasonable suspicion or probable cause to even detain the person. Once they have the reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a stop, if the officer feels safer investigating you while you are disarmed, it makes sense. If you don't want to be disarmed, don't violate the law. If the police violate your rights and disarm you with no apparent reason, file a complaint.

Citizens aren't paid to arrest people. They have no reason to be disarming each other. So comparing citizens to police as far as disarming each other is pointless.

Sorry, but people should not expect police to issue citations, investigate, or arrest people who are are armed. If an officer makes the choice to do so, that is their choice. If an officer wants to disarm you while detaining you for a violation or a crime, that should be within their authority and as the courts have stated, it is.

tiki
06-03-2011, 8:22 PM
Well, let's talk about this for a moment.

Are you saying that a police officer would be more comfortable with a firearm if it's in its holster being worn in plain view than if it's on the back seat of the car? Quite clearly, the firearm in its holster on the person is much more immediately accessible to its possessor than the one in the back seat.


When I said in the holster, I meant concealed. Sorry, i'm stuck in this California thing. :)
My point is just that if the gun is out of sight, I believe the officer needs something else to search. But, if it is in plain view, then it's fair game to secure. Does it make it any safer if it is in a concealed holster vs. on the seat in plain view? Probably not. It depends on the person. I can get that thing out of the holster pretty fast, but it goes back to that probable cause thing. If there's dope in a backpack, you don't consent to a search, but, if it's laying out in the open, all bets are off.
I know a lot of you guys are stuck on this "disarming" thing. Like it was pointed out by either you or chris12 before, my view of reasonable differs from your view, and, that's ok.

kcbrown
06-03-2011, 8:44 PM
So what do we do with inmates? Why can we disarm them? Is it because they were found guilty in a court of law?


Yes, it's because they were found guilty in a court of law by a jury. The principle is that if you violate the rights of someone else, you give up your own, but the decision as to whether or not you are to be forced to give up your rights must come through adjudication. In particular, the people must decide that. It is improper for the government to decide such a thing (with the possible exception of when the target person decides of his own free will to allow the government to make the decision through a judge instead of a jury. I consider that a gray area).

This is why jury nullification is so important and fundamental, as well. The jury doesn't just decide whether or not an individual should be stripped of his rights for violating the rights of another, they also decide whether the law that was broken is just -- that is, whether or not the law itself properly defines whether or not someone's rights have been violated.

A cop on the street is not the means through which rights are so removed.



So if I shoot my next door neighbor, does the cop have a right to disarm me? Yes? Why? Because he witnessed me commit a crime?


Yes. At that point, the cop has the right of arrest. And so would any other civilian who saw the crime.



So then why can't the officer disarm a person they are investigating for criminal or civil violations? You speed and you are armed, how is that any different than shooting someone and being armed?


Because the officer is not arresting the person they're investigating. Arrest is the only proper situation in which the police officer can legitimately strip another of his right to keep and bear arms.



Citizens aren't paid to arrest people.


And yet, they have that power. Check the penal codes for yourself if you don't believe me.



They have no reason to be disarming each other. So comparing citizens to police as far as disarming each other is pointless.


No, it's quite illustrative, actually. Because the fact of the matter is that your argument boils down to this: the police officer can legitimately disarm the person he's dealing with because it makes him feel safer. Statistically, it does make him safer. But that is true for any encounter between citizens.

No, that's not enough.

kcbrown
06-03-2011, 8:45 PM
When I said in the holster, I meant concealed. Sorry, i'm stuck in this California thing. :)


That's perfectly understandable. :)

Hopefully, we'll get things fixed here in California so that both options are available to us.



My point is just that if the gun is out of sight, I believe the officer needs something else to search. But, if it is in plain view, then it's fair game to secure. Does it make it any safer if it is in a concealed holster vs. on the seat in plain view? Probably not.


And in one stroke, you have managed to destroy your own argument.

If the safety of the police officer is predicated on the detainee being disarmed, then concealment makes no difference.

CenterX
06-03-2011, 9:08 PM
Yup. Seize is absolutely the wrong word to use regarding this decision.

BTW one of the things one agrees to when completing the California CCW application is to "To show the license or surrender the concealed weapon to any peace officer upon
demand."

Where did you learn this? This is not requirement in CA - Unless it is written on your CCW.

Yet regarding this posted case - 10% hit it pretty much. Ya'll gotta follow the basic rules to slide along unobstructed.

Now for the kicker - Felony (once resolved) was not a limitation of freedom when the Constitution was originally ratified. And, some felons petition the courts and get their rights restored after they have completed the "common sense" (whatever the "common sense" flavor of the week happens to be at the time) rehabilitation.

Common sense tells me that every person has the right to self defense even if they look or smell offensive.

Don't be a dufus and make sure your ride is registered and displays the tags.

Coded-Dude
06-03-2011, 9:11 PM
i think there is a huge difference between an officer witnessing a civil infraction versus a criminal law violation. seeing someone litter does not constitute drawing down on the perpetrator(or even disarming him/her), while something like robbery certainly may.

Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness.

we certainly do need law and liberty, and we all have our own opinion of where each begins and ends, but the founding fathers were pretty clear of what "shall not be infringed" means.

tiki
06-03-2011, 11:15 PM
If the safety of the police officer is predicated on the detainee being disarmed, then concealment makes no difference.

Ok. I agree with you. But, I'd still be ok with the cop checking my firearm. :-)

chris12
06-04-2011, 12:25 AM
Sorry, but people should not expect police to issue citations, investigate, or arrest people who are are armed. If an officer makes the choice to do so, that is their choice. If an officer wants to disarm you while detaining you for a violation or a crime, that should be within their authority and as the courts have stated, it is.

Because the officer is not arresting the person they're investigating. Arrest is the only proper situation in which the police officer can legitimately strip another of his right to keep and bear arms.

I'd still be ok with the cop checking my firearm. :-)

I'm with kcbrown here on no disarming until the person is under arrest. tenpercent is apparently upon any investigation or citation. tiki, at what point do you feel it is ok for an officer to disarm a citizen?

Consider that with this ruling (IMHO) anyone open carrying (legal in NM) is considered armed and dangerous, which would lead me to believe they should be investigated.

tenpercent, if your neighbor (or some anonymous person) called in a noise (or any other) complaint against your residence, your position is that it is ok for the police to come to your house and disarm you while conducting their investigation? What if the complaint was about your place of business, should they secure all the weapons there during the investigation?

kcbrown
06-04-2011, 12:46 AM
Ok. I agree with you. But, I'd still be ok with the cop checking my firearm. :-)

And you know what? That's absolutely your right. If you want to voluntarily surrender your firearm to the officer, by all means, please do so.

But there is a vast difference between that and the officer demanding that you surrender your firearm against your will.


It is the latter case that I'm concerned with.

tiki
06-04-2011, 7:29 AM
And you know what? That's absolutely your right. If you want to voluntarily surrender your firearm to the officer, by all means, please do so.

But there is a vast difference between that and the officer demanding that you surrender your firearm against your will.


It is the latter case that I'm concerned with.

I understand your position. The more I think about it, the more I agree with it. I was looking at making my side of the road stop encounter go better for me. :) I've always been opposed to disarmament but this particular scenario didn't initially strike me as being a disarmament any more than getting on a plane was. I looked at it as getting the cop from DEFCON 5 down to DEFCON 2. :)

I did try the holster draw from a seated position in the car with and without the seatbelt this morning and it was a lot tougher than I thought. Definitely more time for someone to react; a lot more movement than going for it on the seat. From now on, it's coming out of the holster when I get in the car. I found a nice place between the center console and my hip. It's pretty much concealed there, but if someone tries something like a carjacking, it pops out much quicker.

scarville
06-04-2011, 8:43 AM
What if the complaint was about your place of business, should they secure all the weapons there during the investigation?
According to this column (http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=414) by Vin Suprynowicz something very much like that happened to Charlie Mitchener, a Las Vegas business owner, in January of last year.

Here is a followup column (http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=431)

(The above are links to http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com (http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/), not the Las Vegas Review Journal)

javalos
06-04-2011, 11:08 AM
A handgun in plain view inside a vehicle isn't the modus operandi of most law abiding citizens unless a state instructs CCW people while operating a vehicle to keep a firearm in plain view. I can understand an officer taking the firearm that he sees until things get checked and sorted out. What I wouldn't like at all is an officer going inside a trunk to get at legal firearms.

kcbrown
06-04-2011, 7:45 PM
A handgun in plain view inside a vehicle isn't the modus operandi of most law abiding citizens unless a state instructs CCW people while operating a vehicle to keep a firearm in plain view. I can understand an officer taking the firearm that he sees until things get checked and sorted out. What I wouldn't like at all is an officer going inside a trunk to get at legal firearms.

Then let me ask you this:

What's the difference between those two scenarios?

Why does visibility of the firearm make any difference whatsoever to whether or not the police officer should be able to secure it?

I submit to you that visibility makes no difference at all as to whether or not the police officer should be able to secure it. If you believe he should be able to, then he should be able to even if it's concealed.


The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Visibility of an object does not change the reasonableness of seizure of the object -- it only obviates a search for it. That reasonableness depends on the circumstances, and I submit to you that if the circumstances warrant seizure of the object, then they also warrant arrest of the person who is currently in possession of it.

kcbrown
06-04-2011, 8:38 PM
I understand your position. The more I think about it, the more I agree with it. I was looking at making my side of the road stop encounter go better for me. :)


I, too, prefer to make such encounters go as smoothly as possible. Like I said, most cops are good guys doing a tough job. If the cop I'm dealing with appears to be a good guy and requests (but does not demand) that I temporarily surrender my firearm to him, I almost certainly will (unless I perceive that the circumstances are such that doing so would be unwise, in which case I'll explain my reasons to him).


I've always been opposed to disarmament but this particular scenario didn't initially strike me as being a disarmament any more than getting on a plane was. I looked at it as getting the cop from DEFCON 5 down to DEFCON 2. :)


Exactly.

I should note that getting on a plane is just as much disarmament as anything else. Don't believe me? Ask the people on the planes that were used for the 9/11 attacks. I've already run the numbers, and in a society where even a small fraction of the normal people on board the airplane are armed, the bad guys will have a rather small chance of actually finding themselves on a plane where they won't have to deal with an armed passenger (and they won't know which passenger(s) are armed, either).

If just 5% of the population is armed, and those who board an airplane are allowed carry a firearm on board, then the chance that a given flight of 150 people won't have at least one armed passenger on board is around 1 in 2000. The odds against the terrorists go up fast as the percentage of people carrying increases.

Even for commercial aviation, a well-armed population is better than a poorly-armed one.

Anchors
06-05-2011, 4:11 AM
The wording is what really bothers me.
In Arizona (arguably the "most free" major state in the country), if an officers requests, you MUST surrender a firearm to him for the duration of a stop.
So this is nothing new.
What bothers me is there assertion that the presence of a gun makes a person "armed and dangerous" and can be assumed to "pose a threat to officer safety".

That is absurd. I don't mind handing over my CCW firearm while the officer runs my license if it makes him feel better, but considering me a dangerous criminal is a problem.

tenpercentfirearms
06-05-2011, 6:31 AM
Because the officer is not arresting the person they're investigating. Arrest is the only proper situation in which the police officer can legitimately strip another of his right to keep and bear arms.Ah but you can be arrested for speeding. And that is my point. An officer that is investigating a crime doesn't know when they are going to arrest someone. Should they wait until they have asked all of their questions and then just tell the armed person to turn around and put their hands behind their back? That wouldn't be very smart.

No, it's quite illustrative, actually. Because the fact of the matter is that your argument boils down to this: the police officer can legitimately disarm the person he's dealing with because it makes him feel safer. Statistically, it does make him safer. But that is true for any encounter between citizens.

No, that's not enough.
Well the courts seem to agree with me. It is enough.

I'm with kcbrown here on no disarming until the person is under arrest. tenpercent is apparently upon any investigation or citation. tiki, at what point do you feel it is ok for an officer to disarm a citizen?

Consider that with this ruling (IMHO) anyone open carrying (legal in NM) is considered armed and dangerous, which would lead me to believe they should be investigated.Wrong. Anyone open carrying and not doing anything else wrong is within their rights. Again, people in this thread are painting with way too wide of a brush.

tenpercent, if your neighbor (or some anonymous person) called in a noise (or any other) complaint against your residence, your position is that it is ok for the police to come to your house and disarm you while conducting their investigation?How would the police know I am armed? I wouldn't open the door with a pistol on my hip or my SKS over my shoulder. I wouldn't let them in the house. If they are investigating me for something, I have nothing to say to them and they can speak to my lawyer.

If they asked if I am armed and they want me to remove my weapon while we are chatting outside, that is fine. They aren't coming in the house and I have nothing to say about anything inside the house.

What if the complaint was about your place of business, should they secure all the weapons there during the investigation?This is an interesting hypothetical. In this case I guess they would be able to secure all of the weapons. However, it would be extremely impractical since I have at least 500 firearms on the facility. It would be much smarter to ask me to step outside to talk and to leave my handgun inside.

Plus, they are coming to my business to investigate me. I would simply tell them I have nothing to say and they can leave and come back with a warrant. That would then force them to either arrest me or do as I said.

The problem with your hypothetical scenarios is you aren't justifying why the police are there to begin with. In this specific case, police are able to temporarily seize firearms during a traffic stop. They are doing so because of the potential danger of a traffic stop and the fact that police pull people over to issue citations, impound vehicles, and effect arrests.

Cops walking up to your house on a noise complaint or swinging by the gun shop for an investigation are entirely different events and I am not so sure they qualify under the same guidelines. Your home and your property afford you maximum protection under the 4th Amendment. The courts very well could rule that the police do not have a right to disarm you in your gun shop or in your home unless they are arresting you, especially if you didn't invite them in nor consent to a search.

chris12
06-06-2011, 9:21 AM
Wrong. Anyone open carrying and not doing anything else wrong is within their rights. Again, people in this thread are painting with way too wide of a brush.
What if you were rear-ended, 0% your fault (though officers don't know that yet). Officers shows up to investigate, should they be able to disarm you?

How would the police know I am armed? I wouldn't open the door with a pistol on my hip or my SKS over my shoulder. I wouldn't let them in the house. If they are investigating me for something, I have nothing to say to them and they can speak to my lawyer. Lets say they see a gun through a window or by looking through a reverse peephole tool or through the door as you step out. Maybe there is a gun out because you are cleaning it... They should be able then to order you outside the house, and go in and secure the weapon right? Just like they did with this guy's car.

If they asked if I am armed and they want me to remove my weapon while we are chatting outside, that is fine. They aren't coming in the house and I have nothing to say about anything inside the house.
They guy didn't let them into the car (at first), why shouldn't they be allowed to go into your home and secure the weapons for their security?

This is an interesting hypothetical. In this case I guess they would be able to secure all of the weapons. However, it would be extremely impractical since I have at least 500 firearms on the facility. It would be much smarter to ask me to step outside to talk and to leave my handgun inside.
Smarter yes, but if you had an anti officer (or an officer very concerned for their own safety?) you could have your business on hold while they secure 500+ weapons.

Plus, they are coming to my business to investigate me. I would simply tell them I have nothing to say and they can leave and come back with a warrant. That would then force them to either arrest me or do as I said. I see this ruling as giving them the power/authority to go in and secure all the weapons without a warrant, and of course discover anything else in plain view while they are there. Maybe it doesn't qualify, but if an officer did this I suspect it would be nearly impossible to recover the lost time/money through a court battle.

The problem with your hypothetical scenarios is you aren't justifying why the police are there to begin with. In this specific case, police are able to temporarily seize firearms during a traffic stop. They are doing so because of the potential danger of a traffic stop and the fact that police pull people over to issue citations, impound vehicles, and effect arrests.
I didn't put much emphasis on why they are there, because the court ruling doesn't place any emphasis on why they are there, just that they saw a person and a gun near each other. Investigating a noise complaint, or a DV, or a MWAG, or even walking near someone who is LOC are all potentially dangerous situations.

Cops walking up to your house on a noise complaint or swinging by the gun shop for an investigation are entirely different events and I am not so sure they qualify under the same guidelines. Your home and your property afford you maximum protection under the 4th Amendment. The courts very well could rule that the police do not have a right to disarm you in your gun shop or in your home unless they are arresting you, especially if you didn't invite them in nor consent to a search. Hopefully they wouldn't qualify. The 4th is taking a major beating in legislature and courts right now.

chris12
06-06-2011, 9:54 AM
scarville, very interesting articles. I appreciate the links.

tiki
06-06-2011, 10:12 AM
If just 5% of the population is armed, and those who board an airplane are allowed carry a firearm on board, then the chance that a given flight of 150 people won't have at least one armed passenger on board is around 1 in 2000. The odds against the terrorists go up fast as the percentage of people carrying increases.

Even for commercial aviation, a well-armed population is better than a poorly-armed one.

Have you seen some of these yahoos at the range shooting? :)

stormy_clothing
06-06-2011, 10:16 AM
huh - and hear I thought the constitution was the highest law in the land, now it's just a cops opinion that rules them all - not surprised really though.

kcbrown
06-06-2011, 11:17 AM
Have you seen some of these yahoos at the range shooting? :)

That changes the premise not at all: a well armed population is preferable to a poorly armed one.

You disagree with this??


Additionally, your argument above is the same as one the anti-gunners love to use: "the general population isn't competent enough to own and carry firearms".


It's not a question of whether or not having the population on board the airplane being armed is "safe" in the event of terrorists trying to take over the plane. There is no "safe" option in that case, so it's then just a question of whether or not it's better for the passengers to be armed than to not be armed.

And just as it's better for the population to be armed in the event some madman decides to go on a killing spree, it's similarly better for them to be armed in the face of terrorists on board an airplane. In both cases, there are criminals bent on destruction. In both cases, someone who is armed will have a much better chance of taking the bad guys out than would someone who is not armed. And the more such people there are on our side, the greater the chance the bad guy(s) will be taken out.



Bottom line: stop busting out the anti-gun arguments in support of your favorite "exceptions" to RKBA. They don't work in the general case, and they don't work in those specific cases, either.

tiki
06-06-2011, 1:17 PM
That changes the premise not at all: a well armed population is preferable to a poorly armed one.
You disagree with this??


Of course not. Do you believe that people with mental disorders or convicted felons should be allowed to carry loaded firearms? There are some restrictions needed. My Yahoo comment was intended as a joke, hence the smiley.


Bottom line: stop busting out the anti-gun arguments in support of your favorite "exceptions" to RKBA. They don't work in the general case, and they don't work in those specific cases, either.

Ok, easy my friend. Some of these arguments are not unique to antis. I see that you believe in an unrestricted right to keep and bear arms, but, that isn't realistic either. There has to be some level of restriction. You can't have an absolute right. It just doesn't work. If you want to allow people to carry on a plane, then why stop them from carrying while drinking at the bar? Or, why stop a convicted felon or someone with mental disorders from buying a firearm? What about foreigners? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say citizens, it say the people. So, then are you advocating that Abdul Al-keek Youraz should be able to come here on vacation, go down to the gun shop and buy an AR-15? And, if so, then the GCA should be repealed and Abdul should be able to get an Uzi, right? Now, he can board his Southwest Airlines flight, order up a few drinks, and, sit in row 3 with his AR-15 and 30 round magazine with his Uzi in the seat back pocket in front of him.

smn
06-06-2011, 1:38 PM
The Oconee County Sheriff, Scott Berry, has a phrase he's used on several occasions on GeorgiaPacking.org:
If the officer can't tell the difference between a thug and a taxpayer he's in the wrong line of business.

scarville
06-06-2011, 2:33 PM
Trying use mental disorder as a disqualification for gun ownership reveals a profound ignorance of just what is consider a "mental disorder" these days. This is a sampling of the definitions you might want to read. (Proposed for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders V)

Fetishistic Disorder (http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=63)
Transvestic Disorder (http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=63)
Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=63)
Erectile Disorder (http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=171)
Gender Dysphoria (in Adolescents or Adults) (http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=482)

kcbrown
06-06-2011, 2:44 PM
Of course not. Do you believe that people with mental disorders or convicted felons should be allowed to carry loaded firearms? There are some restrictions needed. My Yahoo comment was intended as a joke, hence the smiley.


Sorry about that.

On the internet, nobody knows that you're joking. :D



Ok, easy my friend. Some of these arguments are not unique to antis. I see that you believe in an unrestricted right to keep and bear arms, but, that isn't realistic either.


Not quite unrestricted, but close.

I'm of the opinion that only the clinically insane should be prevented from RKBA. Everyone else gets it, including convicted felons who are no longer serving time.

Why convicted felons who are no longer serving time? A number of reasons:


Today, a "felony" is a very arbitrary crime, and there are plenty of victimless felonies.
The felon has served his time. His sentence is over. If the crime he committed is so bad that he should be stripped of his RKBA, then the sentence itself should be increased so that he spends that much more time behind bars.
A firearm is by no means the only dangerous item someone can get their hands on. An automobile is an excellent example of a device that is extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. Any argument that applies to firearms applies equally well to other things from which convicted felons are not restricted.
Someone who is determined to commit a crime will pay no heed to laws restricting him from a firearm. That argument applies just as well to convicted felons as anyone else. If a convicted felon is going to be law abiding henceforth then there is no need to restrict his RKBA (and, indeed, doing so is counterproductive). If he's intent on committing further crimes then a law forbidding him from exercising his RKBA will have no effect whatsoever.




There has to be some level of restriction. You can't have an absolute right. It just doesn't work.


You need to justify this statement. We're talking about a fundamental right. You can't just restrict it simply because "it has to have some level of restriction". The only reason to restrict it at all is if not doing so would place the people in very significant danger and there is no other way to combat it. Such is the case with the clinically insane -- in that case you're protecting against their unpredictability, but that very unpredictability is what makes a prohibition against ownership work, for circumventing that requires significant forethought.



If you want to allow people to carry on a plane, then why stop them from carrying while drinking at the bar?


Why indeed? Why not also disallow people from driving to the bar to begin with (i.e., allow only public transport or private taxi service)?

Here's the bottom line: no matter what you do in law, eventually people have to take responsibility for their actions and the consequences thereof. It doesn't matter what their state of mind may be, as long as they got to that state of mind through their own actions (being drugged up against your will by another doesn't count).

But if you're going to insist that people take responsibility for their actions, then what's the purpose of the laws you're proposing or talking about? They do nothing to protect the public because someone who is determined to break the law will do so regardless.


In other words, enough with the laws against anything other than actions that are intended to or actually cause harm. ENOUGH!! We've had 200 years of such laws crammed down our throats and the end result is nothing other than that we can no longer do anything without at least some concern that we may be breaking some law.



What about foreigners? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say citizens, it say the people. So, then are you advocating that Abdul Al-keek Youraz should be able to come here on vacation, go down to the gun shop and buy an AR-15? And, if so, then the GCA should be repealed and Abdul should be able to get an Uzi, right? Now, he can board his Southwest Airlines flight, order up a few drinks, and, sit in row 3 with his AR-15 and 30 round magazine with his Uzi in the seat back pocket in front of him.

Yeah. And so can anyone else.

Again, your arguments here don't work because someone intent on committing a crime will get their hands on a firearm regardless. You think the criminals don't have access to automatic weapons? They're the only ones that do anymore. At least if people are allowed to carry their firearms on board the airplane, they have a chance at thwarting the criminal's intent. If they're unarmed then what chance have they?

Do you think passengers should be stripped of their pens prior to boarding the flight? A pen can be used as a devastating stabbing weapon, you know.


No. Again, enough is enough. Prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the restrictions in question are the only way to prevent a significant danger to the public (and "significant" doesn't refer just to the level of danger, but to its probability and scope as well) and you'll have reasonable justification for a restriction against RKBA. Not until then.


It's high time we quit huddling in the corner, afraid to do anything without the government holding our hands. It's time we stop being a bunch of pansies. Stop being afraid of what might happen. Instead, watch was does happen, and deal with it then. It's the only way to be free, and freedom is dangerous. But it's vastly preferable to the alternative.

chris12
06-06-2011, 2:58 PM
Ok, easy my friend. Some of these arguments are not unique to antis. I see that you believe in an unrestricted right to keep and bear arms, but, that isn't realistic either. There has to be some level of restriction. You can't have an absolute right. It just doesn't work. If you want to allow people to carry on a plane, then why stop them from carrying while drinking at the bar? Or, why stop a convicted felon or someone with mental disorders from buying a firearm? What about foreigners? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say citizens, it say the people. So, then are you advocating that Abdul Al-keek Youraz should be able to come here on vacation, go down to the gun shop and buy an AR-15? And, if so, then the GCA should be repealed and Abdul should be able to get an Uzi, right? Now, he can board his Southwest Airlines flight, order up a few drinks, and, sit in row 3 with his AR-15 and 30 round magazine with his Uzi in the seat back pocket in front of him.

Even though this wasn't addressed to me, I would say that I do not believe in an unrestricted right, but that many things people consider reasonable restrictions I do not. Why should people drinking in a bar be unable to protect themselves? Why should foreigners not be able? Some mental disorders should limit some people for some amount of time, trying to define one rule fits all won't work perfectly, but if done should error on the side of liberty. I'm ok with not having weapons allowed in prison, though guards should be protecting prisoners better, but once a persons debt to society has been paid back they should get their liberties back. (Note a persons debt to society may or may not be completed when they are released, due to other problems like jail overcrowding, etc).

I'm guessing Southwest would have something to say, considering the current state of that freaking people out, and the plane being their property. The govt should not be able to say no guns on planes/public flights any more then they should be able to say no guns in cars/taxi's. If Abdul could safely carry (ie not point gun in an unsafe direction) then I'm ok with it. Should make for a better conversation than most flights :D

chris12
06-06-2011, 3:02 PM
Dang, should have waited a bit longer to reply then I would have seen kcbrown's much better worded response and not needed to post mine.

kcbrown
06-06-2011, 3:03 PM
Abdul Al-keek Youraz

:rofl2:

kcbrown
06-06-2011, 3:20 PM
Remember, people: the right to keep and bear arms is a right to possess and carry an inanimate object that poses no danger unless the person carrying it does.

Address the person, not the object. Or, as I like to say: if you're trying to solve a problem, then stop screwing around with half-baked band-aids and fix the root cause.

Restrictions on RKBA are almost always half-baked band-aids.

tiki
06-06-2011, 8:06 PM
Why should people drinking in a bar be unable to protect themselves?


Because they would likely be protecting themselves from some other armed person who had too much to drink and thought someone bumped into them or was looking at their wife/girlfried or whatever the hell drunk people argue about.


Some mental disorders should limit some people for some amount of time, trying to define one rule fits all won't work perfectly, but if done should error on the side of liberty.

So, where do you draw the line? The problem is some people don't want to draw a line at all and the rest of us argue about where that line should be drawn.


I'm ok with not having weapons allowed in prison,


Awesome! I'll mark you down in the "supports reasonable restrictions" column. :)

I'm guessing Southwest would have something to say, considering the current state of that freaking people out, and the plane being their property. The govt should not be able to say no guns on planes/public flights any more then they should be able to say no guns in cars/taxi's. If Abdul could safely carry (ie not point gun in an unsafe direction) then I'm ok with it. Should make for a better conversation than most flights :D

Most people can't tell you what a safe direction is, and as you know, that changes depending on where you are and what is around, above and below you.

But, it doesn't matter. All airlines would ban it anyway. So, you still wouldn't be able to do it. At the end of the day, you have the same thing; you are on a plane and your gun is in checked baggage. Some people will say, "oh, well at least the gov't didn't tell me I couldn't do it", but who cares who told you you can't do it, you still can't do it.

And, since we started taking an absolute rights view of the 2nd, let's allow LOC. Now we have people open carrying everywhere. Walking down the street with thigh rigs or dual shoulder holsters. It's all fun and games, but then businesses start restricting firearms. NO FIREARMS signs everywhere. How's your right to keep and bear arms working out for you now? The gov't didn't restrict your right, everyone else did. Yeah, some of you wouldn't care, until they made it a felony for carrying a firearm in a place with a posted sign. Then, one bust and you are done.

Since we can't stop first time offenders from walking into schools or malls and shooting people, we are now going to give the guy who got out of prison the right to buy a gun and carry it down the street on his hip.
On top of that, we'll take away the cops right to ask someone about their gun laying casually on the floor of their car, and, as a bonus, we'll let Willy the drunk wear his Glock at Hooters where he thinks it's ok to grab a server's ***. That's until they try to kick him out and he daws down on someone. Are you willing to shoot Willy after you had a beer or three and risk hitting someone else by mistake? I'm not. (And, I'm a damn good shot)
Now the cops show up, 8 or 9 of them with their guns drawn, and you are in there with your buddies from work having a happy hour at the end of the day when the shootout starts; not the kind of shots i'm looking for when I go out. How will that play out in the news?

Now people start raising hell and protesting. Legistatures around the country begin to jump on the bandwagon to pass a new amendment effectively killing the 2nd Amendment all becasue we don't want to ok a few reasonable restrictions.

Yeah, I can hear it now, "it will never happen", "most people support the right to keep and bear arms". Yeah, now they do. Start with some of this crap and see what happens. Every day, we bring more and more people into this country from places where owning a gun is not even a thought. More and more of them move here and become voters and they don't care about guns. They get their opinion from the news. What is your argument? Oh, yeah, we'll take them out to the range and show them how much fun it is! BS. More and more of them raise children who become voters and aren't into firearms. I work with people like this all day. It won't take long for us to become a minority. It may not be in 5 or 10 years, but, it may be in some of your lifetimes. They don't want you walking through the stores in <insert your local rich neighborhood> with a gun on your hip.

How many letters do you guys write to oppose new laws? How many phone calls do you make to fight proposed legislation? Look how effective that is here in California (sarcasm). Wait until this liberal mentality spreads to the rest of the country. There is no support in Congress right now for a new AWB, but that will change in a few years. Look at your SCOTUS makeup. One judge, that's it. One conservative gets replaced by another Kagan or Sotomayor and it's going to be even tougher. How close did we come to this argument being moot? 1 vote. Just 1. Let that change and see if someone doesn't propose a 3000 foot sensitive area around a school because people start walking by schools with holsters on. Have that go in front of Kagan, Sotomayor and friends. Done. Yeah, you can keep and bear, just do it outside of that 3000 foot radius, and CCW doesn't exempt you. How's that? Go overturn that my friends. Gura is kicking butt right now, no question about it, but, get that 1 judge and his season will end like it did for the Lakers.

I'll STFU and take CCW over LOC rather than get antis all worked up over all the guns on the street. I'd rather it be hidden and nobody know. It's the same reason as the orignal argument about the traffic stop. If it's hidden, then nobody knows. Once you start putting stuff out there for people to see, sticking it in their face, then you give them cause to get worked up. Why put it in someones face? That open carry movement got a few restaraunt chains to issue a no weapons policy. Get a court decision allowing LOC in this state and watch what happens. It will get so much publicity that the legal depts for all these big chains will come out with new policies. NO FIREARMS ON PREMISIS. Chew on that for a few minutes.

Sorry. You can say I sound like an anti or i'm a dictator's dream, but, i'm not looking at the short term. We are the generation that got the 2nd Amendment recognized as an individual right by the Supreme Court of the U.S. Let's not also be the generation that fuels an amendment to kill it.

tiki
06-06-2011, 8:07 PM
Address the person, not the object. Or, as I like to say: if you're trying to solve a problem, then stop screwing around with half-baked band-aids and fix the root cause.


To many people, the root cause is now the 2nd Amendment.

kcbrown
06-06-2011, 8:52 PM
To many people, the root cause is now the 2nd Amendment.

The root cause of a real-world problem is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact that is often derivable from a cause-and-effect analysis. Sometimes it's not possible to determine the root cause of a problem, but in many cases it is.

If the 2nd Amendment were the root cause of the problems people attribute it to then none of the countries that lack an equivalent would have any of those problems. They do, ergo the 2nd Amendment cannot be the root cause the people you refer to seek.

Coded-Dude
06-06-2011, 9:10 PM
IMHO it's a simple cost benefit analysis............most of us agree that the needs outweigh the costs, but there are many that think/believe the costs are too important and thus negate the need.

i'd rather have and not need than be told by someone else that i don't need it...

scarville
06-06-2011, 9:19 PM
What makes anybody think concealed means concealed for much longer? Millimeter wave cameras are already down under three pounds and $500. This one from Walleye Technology is already available and the technology will only get better.

http://youtu.be/CJWB527wBXI

In a couple of years portable phones will be able to do it.

kcbrown
06-06-2011, 9:34 PM
Tiki, I think you're confusing where we want to be with how we want to get there.

What I've been arguing for and about is where we want to be.

What you've been arguing for and about is at least as much how we want to get there, but you seem to be assuming that some of the challenges we'll face will (or should) determine where we want to be. And as far as I'm concerned, the dependency is one-way: how we get there depends in large part on where we want to go, but where we want to go (as opposed to where we wind up) does not depend on how we get there in any way.


Quite obviously, we'll need to ensure that most of the concerns that you raise would be addressed by the way we get to the destination we seek, but that absolutely should not change what we believe that destination should be.

Otherwise, you'll be changing your idea of what we "should" want based on the worst of what the rest of the population thinks of it. Where we are right now is a reflection of that, and I'm not happy about it at all. I don't think you are, either.


There was a time when many people wore their firearms openly, so much so that concealed carry was considered the action of a dishonorable man. They were just as human as we are, with the same wants, needs, and concerns that we have. The only difference of note is that they lived in an environment in which guns were viewed as what I said they are: inanimate objects that are only as dangerous as the people carrying them. Shootouts in bars (or the equivalent at the time) happened quite infrequently, for if they happened frequently then we would have lost RKBA long before we did for the very reasons you state. Instead, it took the fierce, blind prejudice of the post-civil-war era to kick off the assault on our RKBA. The problems we have today are a side effect of that, caused by governments taking advantage of the situation to expand their power.

Part of getting to our destination will involve getting people used to seeing firearms in public again. That could easily be the most challenging part of the journey. But it is a necessary part of the journey, and one that, if history is any guide, should be achievable -- for if people of the past were not afraid of firearms, then it's possible for people of the future to be unafraid of them as well.

tiki
06-06-2011, 9:38 PM
What makes anybody think concealed means concealed for much longer? Millimeter wave cameras are already down under three pounds and $500. This one from Walleye Technology is already available and the technology will only get better.

http://youtu.be/CJWB527wBXI

In a couple of years portable phones will be able to do it.

That looks like the pool sweeper from my pool.

chris12
06-06-2011, 9:59 PM
Because they would likely be protecting themselves from some other armed person who had too much to drink and thought someone bumped into them or was looking at their wife/girlfried or whatever the hell drunk people argue about.
Stupid people will do stupid things. Some states allow this now, it hasn't been an issue for them. Even if it would be a problem, punish the people who break laws not everyone in hopes of stopping them.


So, where do you draw the line? The problem is some people don't want to draw a line at all and the rest of us argue about where that line should be drawn.
I don't know much about most/all mental health issue, so I don't have a specific stance. Off the top of my head I think it could be done on a Dr. by Dr. basis, with review by a judge and jury if wanted.



Awesome! I'll mark you down in the "supports reasonable restrictions" column. :)
Does that mean I can go get a Brady sticker? :)



Most people can't tell you what a safe direction is, and as you know, that changes depending on where you are and what is around, above and below you.

But, it doesn't matter. All airlines would ban it anyway. So, you still wouldn't be able to do it. At the end of the day, you have the same thing; you are on a plane and your gun is in checked baggage. Some people will say, "oh, well at least the gov't didn't tell me I couldn't do it", but who cares who told you you can't do it, you still can't do it.

And, since we started taking an absolute rights view of the 2nd, let's allow LOC. Now we have people open carrying everywhere. Walking down the street with thigh rigs or dual shoulder holsters. It's all fun and games, but then businesses start restricting firearms. NO FIREARMS signs everywhere. How's your right to keep and bear arms working out for you now? The gov't didn't restrict your right, everyone else did. Yeah, some of you wouldn't care, until they made it a felony for carrying a firearm in a place with a posted sign. Then, one bust and you are done.

Since we can't stop first time offenders from walking into schools or malls and shooting people, we are now going to give the guy who got out of prison the right to buy a gun and carry it down the street on his hip.
On top of that, we'll take away the cops right to ask someone about their gun laying casually on the floor of their car, and, as a bonus, we'll let Willy the drunk wear his Glock at Hooters where he thinks it's ok to grab a server's ***. That's until they try to kick him out and he daws down on someone. Are you willing to shoot Willy after you had a beer or three and risk hitting someone else by mistake? I'm not. (And, I'm a damn good shot)
Now the cops show up, 8 or 9 of them with their guns drawn, and you are in there with your buddies from work having a happy hour at the end of the day when the shootout starts; not the kind of shots i'm looking for when I go out. How will that play out in the news?

Now people start raising hell and protesting. Legistatures around the country begin to jump on the bandwagon to pass a new amendment effectively killing the 2nd Amendment all becasue we don't want to ok a few reasonable restrictions.

Yeah, I can hear it now, "it will never happen", "most people support the right to keep and bear arms". Yeah, now they do. Start with some of this crap and see what happens. Every day, we bring more and more people into this country from places where owning a gun is not even a thought. More and more of them move here and become voters and they don't care about guns. They get their opinion from the news. What is your argument? Oh, yeah, we'll take them out to the range and show them how much fun it is! BS. More and more of them raise children who become voters and aren't into firearms. I work with people like this all day. It won't take long for us to become a minority. It may not be in 5 or 10 years, but, it may be in some of your lifetimes. They don't want you walking through the stores in <insert your local rich neighborhood> with a gun on your hip.

How many letters do you guys write to oppose new laws? How many phone calls do you make to fight proposed legislation? Look how effective that is here in California (sarcasm). Wait until this liberal mentality spreads to the rest of the country. There is no support in Congress right now for a new AWB, but that will change in a few years. Look at your SCOTUS makeup. One judge, that's it. One conservative gets replaced by another Kagan or Sotomayor and it's going to be even tougher. How close did we come to this argument being moot? 1 vote. Just 1. Let that change and see if someone doesn't propose a 3000 foot sensitive area around a school because people start walking by schools with holsters on. Have that go in front of Kagan, Sotomayor and friends. Done. Yeah, you can keep and bear, just do it outside of that 3000 foot radius, and CCW doesn't exempt you. How's that? Go overturn that my friends. Gura is kicking butt right now, no question about it, but, get that 1 judge and his season will end like it did for the Lakers.

I'll STFU and take CCW over LOC rather than get antis all worked up over all the guns on the street. I'd rather it be hidden and nobody know. It's the same reason as the orignal argument about the traffic stop. If it's hidden, then nobody knows. Once you start putting stuff out there for people to see, sticking it in their face, then you give them cause to get worked up. Why put it in someones face? That open carry movement got a few restaraunt chains to issue a no weapons policy. Get a court decision allowing LOC in this state and watch what happens. It will get so much publicity that the legal depts for all these big chains will come out with new policies. NO FIREARMS ON PREMISIS. Chew on that for a few minutes.

Sorry. You can say I sound like an anti or i'm a dictator's dream, but, i'm not looking at the short term. We are the generation that got the 2nd Amendment recognized as an individual right by the Supreme Court of the U.S. Let's not also be the generation that fuels an amendment to kill it.
There is huge difference between what I think laws should be (what I've been arguing for) and what is, and even what they will be. Also, just because I think something should be legal doesn't mean I think it is smart or I would do it.
I haven't been in this fight for very long, but I'm in it now. Though my goals are likely unattainable, I will continue to fight for them, but I will do my best to fight smartly. For now that appears to be securing ccw first (luckily this matches what I'd personally rather do), then going after other things. I wish I could just say 'what don't you understand about "shall not be infringed"' to anyone protecting and defending the constitution and everything would be fixed, but I'm not quite that naive.
As far as airlines go, I think some would create a no firearms policy, fine. I'm sure if too many did someone would create a new airline.
People like Willy deserve harsh sentences so they modify their behavior, but I wouldn't be caught in that situation as I choose not to drink, even though it is my right :)

tiki
06-06-2011, 10:12 PM
Quite obviously, we'll need to ensure that most of the concerns that you raise would be addressed by the way we get to the destination we seek, but that absolutely should not change what we believe that destination should be.


Fair enough.


Otherwise, you'll be changing your idea of what we "should" want based on the worst of what the rest of the population thinks of it. Where we are right now is a reflection of that, and I'm not happy about it at all. I don't think you are, either.

Yeah, we are far from where I think we should be.


There was a time when many people wore their firearms openly, so much so that concealed carry was considered the action of a dishonorable man. They were just as human as we are, with the same wants, needs, and concerns that we have. The only difference of note is that they lived in an environment in which guns were viewed as what I said they are: inanimate objects that are only as dangerous as the people carrying them.

<snip>

Part of getting to our destination will involve getting people used to seeing firearms in public again. That could easily be the most challenging part of the journey. But it is a necessary part of the journey, and one that, if history is any guide, should be achievable -- for if people of the past were not afraid of firearms, then it's possible for people of the future to be unafraid of them as well.

Good luck with that. :) The past was a very different place than it is today.

kcbrown
06-07-2011, 2:48 AM
Good luck with that. :) The past was a very different place than it is today.

The place is different but the people aren't, really. We just allowed ourselves to be lulled into complacency by people who, in the end, had nobody's interests at heart but their own. They sang the siren song of safety: "It's a New World out there! Everything's changed! That's why we need these new laws! To keep us safe!".

But nothing has really changed, when you get right down to it. People still are, at the core, what they always have been. And the nature of government still is, at the core, what it has always been as well. People have just gotten suckered into believing the government's bullsh*t, that the safety of the slave is somehow better than to be free and thus to be forced to face the perils in the world.


9/11 is a perfect example, actually. That event was cynically used to pass all sorts of crazy freedom-restricting laws. The justification was what it usually is, of course, only louder: "the world has changed!". We still hear echoes of that even today. But the world hadn't changed. Rather, we suffered the consequences of disarming ourselves, of letting the government dictate to us how, when, and where we should do things. The government's answer was, as it always has been, more government control. But it is precisely that control which had gotten us into that situation to begin with.


This is tough for most people to hear, but people need to hear it nonetheless. It grates on their sensibilities, because their sensibilities have been defined by over 80 years of increasing government control. But this country was founded by people who fought to free themselves of such government control. It was meant to be a shining beacon of liberty to all. It no longer is, but while the foundation has cracked, it has not yet crumbled. It is still possible to mend the foundation and restore our liberty. But we must first realize some fundamental truths: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. They must realize the truth that it is better to be free and to face risk than to be a slave and be safe -- that freedom is more than worth the risk that comes with it.


And so, I invite you and others to realize these truths, to change your way of thinking, and to embrace the fresh air of freedom. For if you and others do not, then freedom will remain a myth, a wistful memory of a time long past, and may even be lost altogether.

tiki
06-07-2011, 5:41 AM
KC, do you ever sleep? :)

scarville
06-07-2011, 7:08 AM
KC, do you ever sleep? :)
I don't know if he sleeps but it's nice to see another Calgunner who gets that government is a problem masquerading as its own solution.

PatriotnMore
06-07-2011, 7:22 AM
Once again, you hit the nail on the head. The heart of America has not changed, only some of the voices trying to sell us on a new brand of America. There is an awakening happening, and I hope it continues.

The place is different but the people aren't, really. We just allowed ourselves to be lulled into complacency by people who, in the end, had nobody's interests at heart but their own. They sang the siren song of safety: "It's a New World out there! Everything's changed! That's why we need these new laws! To keep us safe!".

But nothing has really changed, when you get right down to it. People still are, at the core, what they always have been. And the nature of government still is, at the core, what it has always been as well. People have just gotten suckered into believing the government's bullsh*t, that the safety of the slave is somehow better than to be free and thus to be forced to face the perils in the world.


9/11 is a perfect example, actually. That event was cynically used to pass all sorts of crazy freedom-restricting laws. The justification was what it usually is, of course, only louder: "the world has changed!". We still hear echoes of that even today. But the world hadn't changed. Rather, we suffered the consequences of disarming ourselves, of letting the government dictate to us how, when, and where we should do things. The government's answer was, as it always has been, more government control. But it is precisely that control which had gotten us into that situation to begin with.


This is tough for most people to hear, but people need to hear it nonetheless. It grates on their sensibilities, because their sensibilities have been defined by over 80 years of increasing government control. But this country was founded by people who fought to free themselves of such government control. It was meant to be a shining beacon of liberty to all. It no longer is, but while the foundation has cracked, it has not yet crumbled. It is still possible to mend the foundation and restore our liberty. But we must first realize some fundamental truths: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. They must realize the truth that it is better to be free and to face risk than to be a slave and be safe -- that freedom is more than worth the risk that comes with it.


And so, I invite you and others to realize these truths, to change your way of thinking, and to embrace the fresh air of freedom. For if you and others do not, then freedom will remain a myth, a wistful memory of a time long past, and may even be lost altogether.

scarville
06-07-2011, 8:50 AM
That looks like the pool sweeper from my pool.
Then feel free to ignore the technology it uses. http://www.heronforge.net/icons/other/ostrich.png

tiki
06-07-2011, 11:13 AM
Then feel free to ignore the technology it uses. http://www.heronforge.net/icons/other/ostrich.png

Ok, thanks! :rolleyes: