transporting weapons through internal checkpoints

[dieselpower]

That pastor dude gives me mixed feelings. He drops F bombs and wants to preach righteousness. I find that a little troubling personally.

Second, properly plan your protest. Giving the DPS and even the Border Patrol guys hell because you want to protest on an interstate is not that bright. Don't preach your message to the one or two guys on the front lines, they aren't policy makers. They are just guys doing their jobs. Sure educate them and hold them accountable, but arguing with them like they make the laws and make policy decisions is foolish and a waste of everyone's time.

I think some of these videos are done for the wrong reasons. I think they are done to stroke personal egos and just for the thrill of screwing with the cops.

I have seen his Taser video. Although I think they might have gone overboard, even if you refuse to consent to a search, the courtroom is where you arguing whether the cops had PC and what not. Actively resisting arrest can get you Tased. Will it be an educator for the BP? Possibly, but I don't feel sorry for the guy. Cops don't have to give you reasons in the field, they just have to try and back it up in court.

I disagree on this. The protest needs to be directed at the problem, which is the Officers and the field supervisors. No one at the top is telling the Officers they are allowed to search a car when they feel like it. No one at the top is telling them "mere suspicion" means a "any thing they don't like".

One of the Videos shows a Supervisor telling the drive the courts ruled that they only need "mere suspicion". Then he asks the driver what "mere" means. I bet if you look up the ruling the word "mere" is used to denote suspicion is needed and not hard evidence, and the rules of PC still apply.

The Officers and Supervisors are moving outside of their duties because they are bored. They will harass 1000 people and find 1 criminal...that not what they are there for. They are setting a precedent for searching cars the same way the Highway Patrol did in the 70s....why are you asking about guns in the car...an honest person posses no threat, a criminal will lie...so why ask? Because the officer needs to cover his *** with PC by saying the driver was suspicious when answering and since firearms pose a threat for safety, he now has a solid basis to go on a fishing trip for crimes ignoring the 4th. The LEO doesn't give a crap what you say...he is just covering his ***.

The only other alternative is to get these guys fired by using $$$ to hire lawyers...so not only are rich people the only people that can get their 4th, you now have to get some guy fired for doing what he THOUGHT he was supposed to.

Please note that once the first encounter goes wrong, the Officers let up on future encounters. This is due to the Officers getting pissed, researching the laws, and then the Supervisors advising them their true mission and how to not violate the 4th. Now everyone is happy except for the true criminal who will exhibit true suspicious behavior when stopped.

Remember, let 100 guilty go free, to avoid 1 innocent convicted..this is true for warrantless searches as well.

[Cokebottle]

Why would Homeland security be maning a state border in the first place? I thought they were a federal agency?

The discussion has been revolving around the internal border checkpoints formerly run by the INS (now DHS).
DHS should not be present at the state ag checkpoints on the 10, 40, and 15, but they will be manning the INS checkpoints on the 5, 8, 111, 86, and the Temecula stop on the 15.

[hawk81]

I don't know where you get this non compliance B.S, but it is B.S. There is a little thing called the constitution that you may or may not have heard of. You have the right to not answer any of the officers(5th ammenment). Also you can say anything you want to the officer, as long as it is not threatening. Also you still have to have probable cause to go inside of someones vehicle and search it. I suggest you go and brush up on some laws, before you go and get your department sued.

I read through these posts rather quicly, im going to go back and read them a little closer... but

I cross that checkpoint all the time as well - going home on my "weekends".

As far as the damages to your car go. Did you notice them before or after you left (again ill go back and read the OP a little more closer). If you noticed them AFTER you left, your going to have a hard time proving that it was infact the K9 that did the damage. You can ALWAYS speak to a supervsor if you have a complaint. They should allow you to file a tort claim and at that point it gets routed up the chain. But again, if you did not show them the damage right then and there, its going to be iffy.

BP opperates under somewhat different guidlines than CBP - We dont have to ask permission to search your vehicle . I consider myself extreemly polite with the traveling public, but when I run into "that guy" ... well, his inspection takes a little longer lol
In secondary - for us - the comment you made to the officer could be considered non-compliance, at which point (to keep it short) we could escort you out of the vehicle, handcuff you, take you into the office for pattdown, and detain you untill our inspection is complete. I do believe your response at the checkpoint was considered non-compliance and the BP escalated per guidlines from there.

[The Director]

Those videos are a little over the top. It's not the cops / bp / trooper's fault they have to man that checkpoint. They should go find out who makes that policy rather than go instigate stuff with the cops.

[hawk81]

Yeah, you sound like a real winner. I hope you run into someone someday that owns your @ss.

get over it. different states have different weapon laws. when im on duty and someone gives me lip when i ask a simple question, you bet you *** im gunna check that prick

[sevensix2x51]

is this the Mr "I'll check that pirck" Wes?

he looks kinda short to me... maybe compensating for being a little guy?

[Cokebottle]

he looks kinda short to me... maybe compensating for being a little guy?

Posted that in the "real military issue hardware" thread....

I didn't realize black "Mechanix" gloves were GI.

[sevensix2x51]

Posted that in the "real military issue hardware" thread....

I didn't realize black "Mechanix" gloves were GI.

at least cough up the dough for clc 'subcontractors'....

[Cokebottle]

at least cough up the dough for clc 'subcontractors'....

Ya, I dunno. I know the guys have some amount of freedom WRT personal gear... and they either aren't loaded or are posing with 10 rounders, so they may be off duty stateside, so I certainly don't want to make the statement that he's not serving.

[sevensix2x51]

Ya, I dunno. I know the guys have some amount of freedom WRT personal gear... and they either aren't loaded or are posing with 10 rounders, so they may be off duty stateside, so I certainly don't want to make the statement that he's not serving.

http://www.utilitysafeguard.com/Gloves/Performance-Gloves/Flex-Grip-Subcontractor-Gloves/

just clarifying. i hate mechanix gloves.

[Cokebottle]

http://www.utilitysafeguard.com/Glov...ractor-Gloves/
just clarifying. i hate mechanix gloves.

Ya, I use them for riding the dirtbike, but I'm not picky as to the brand...

After getting holes and tears in i-don't-know-how-many pair of $45+ "motocross" gloves, I'll grab anything now.
Those clc's do look nice... I'd want to check them out in person though.

Same for my street bike. I got tired of the black "biker" gloves staining my hands... makes it kinda hard to go in for a job interview... so I'm wearing a pair of Wells Lamont work gloves from Home Depot.

[sevensix2x51]

i use them for work and spearfishing. they can handle some abuse.worth a shot, (especially at my cost )

[tenpercentfirearms]

I disagree on this. The protest needs to be directed at the problem, which is the Officers and the field supervisors. No one at the top is telling the Officers they are allowed to search a car when they feel like it. No one at the top is telling them "mere suspicion" means a "any thing they don't like".

One of the Videos shows a Supervisor telling the drive the courts ruled that they only need "mere suspicion". Then he asks the driver what "mere" means. I bet if you look up the ruling the word "mere" is used to denote suspicion is needed and not hard evidence, and the rules of PC still apply.

The Officers and Supervisors are moving outside of their duties because they are bored. They will harass 1000 people and find 1 criminal...that not what they are there for. They are setting a precedent for searching cars the same way the Highway Patrol did in the 70s....why are you asking about guns in the car...an honest person posses no threat, a criminal will lie...so why ask? Because the officer needs to cover his *** with PC by saying the driver was suspicious when answering and since firearms pose a threat for safety, he now has a solid basis to go on a fishing trip for crimes ignoring the 4th. The LEO doesn't give a crap what you say...he is just covering his ***.

The only other alternative is to get these guys fired by using $$$ to hire lawyers...so not only are rich people the only people that can get their 4th, you now have to get some guy fired for doing what he THOUGHT he was supposed to.

Please note that once the first encounter goes wrong, the Officers let up on future encounters. This is due to the Officers getting pissed, researching the laws, and then the Supervisors advising them their true mission and how to not violate the 4th. Now everyone is happy except for the true criminal who will exhibit true suspicious behavior when stopped.

Remember, let 100 guilty go free, to avoid 1 innocent convicted..this is true for warrantless searches as well.

You will note I stated to hold them accountable and educate them. This means stand up for your rights. Telling a supervisor or line officer that their border checkpoint 50 miles inside the border is illegal and wrong is foolish at best. You better believe that they don't get a say on where that checkpoint is. They just follow orders.

And that is my point. The videos I am talking about are people protesting at the checkpoints, which isn't so bad if you are trying to notify motorists they don't have to answer questions and they should not consent to searches. If you start arguing with the BP about why they are set up there and how they are violating the law, you are wasting your time.

I guess you can show this footage to your congresscritter and maybe they will find it interesting. Or maybe they will dismiss you and move on.

The videos do serve some educational purpose to the masses, but how much and how effective I am not sure.

[Nefarious]

I don't know where you get this non compliance B.S, but it is B.S. There is a little thing called the constitution that you may or may not have heard of. You have the right to not answer any of the officers(5th ammenment). Also you can say anything you want to the officer, as long as it is not threatening. Also you still have to have probable cause to go inside of someones vehicle and search it. I suggest you go and brush up on some laws, before you go and get your department sued.

I dont know if it was overlooked - it seems it has been - but I am NOT BP. I do NOT work at the BP checkpoint(s), I do NOT wear a green uniform, I do NOT drive around in a white and green vehicle and I do NOT stop people at checkpoints located WITHIN the United States.

I am CBP, as in Customs and Border Protection. Im the guy in the Blue uniform, driving the blue and white vehicle, stopping people comming from OUTSIDE the United States seeking admission INTO the United States. BP and CPB - along with others - are all part of DHS.

I know what I can and cannot do here at the ACTUAL border.

I was not trying to turn this thread into an argument over this or that. I now know better than to try and shed some light on situations like these

To the OP: Actually, I work both the East and the West. I enjoy the West POE more, simply because there is WAAYYYYYy more action over there . But, cant wait to come back home. Did you eventually get the answers you were looking for?

[GrizzlyGuy]

Judge Napolitano weighed in on this issue back in April on his Freedom Watch show. Being 'none too pleased' with the government's behavior at these internal checkpoints would be an understatement.

Napolitano includes an interview with Pastor Steve Anderson and shows footage from two different encounters of his with the checkpoint goons. In the first one, he was accused of being a terrorist because he refused to answer their questions, and in the second he was tazed and arrested (you all probably heard about that one already).

Anyway, fascinating stuff, you can watch Napolitano's show on this here:

http://stevenandersonfamily.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-not-comply_22.html

In the first video, skip forward to the 8 minute mark. Then watch the 2 videos that follow.

Note also that the 'constitution free zone' where these checkpoints are authorized extends 100 miles from any border, including 100 miles from our coastlines. That puts most of CA, even northern CA, within that zone. If DHS wants to setup one of these checkpoints on I-80 between SF and Sacramento (for example) they can.