State Police violating citizens rights???

[cortchubby]

Link Removed

Link Removed

Link Removed


Since some out here balk at posting the entire law,here are the links to the ACTUAL LAW so as to end all the speculation.

I spoke with ASP Troopers and Supervisors and weighing out all the points of this event,
I (#1) believe there is more to this contact than is being related
(#2) the event is lacking pertain ant information as to the Troop where this trooper was assigned and what,if anything he was fired for or received corrective actions for
(3) MOST IMPORTANT: What was the driver doing that caused the Trooper to "take" the weapon
(4) was this person CCW Permitted from another state?
(5) was this person an actual resident of Arkansas?

As quoted earlier,much information is missing from this tale. Based on AVAILABLE LAW,the correct advice was related here. Hope this helps.
It is VERY IMPORTANT that we as a CCW community KNOW AND UPDATE OURSELVES on the LAW.While what you "feel" is a good thing,that in and of itself will garner you no favor when you are stopped on a dark stretch of highway looking up at a large framed trooper at 3 AM. KNOW the LAW.

 

[cortchubby]

You should have your brother in law contact the NRA, the ACLU and any of a myriad of Attorneys that are "gun case attorneys". If it has been 6 months and he still is hesitant about taking action that would lead me(or 12 other people) to believe that there is something more to this case than is being related here. If that is NOT the case,PUSH HIM TO DO THIS. PUSH HARD. IF this is exactly how this case happened then he on behalf of all CCW people in this COUNTRY needs to step to the line and fight.

 

[Rich_S]

THIS is the ARKANSAS LAW about carrying weapons in a vehicle:

Automobile carry:
Concealed carry in the vehicle is ok with a permit. Without a permit, handguns must be unloaded and cased; glove compartment carry of a handgun is illegal; rifles and shotguns may be carried in plain view or secured in commercial cases.


Subsequent to this,the person involved MAY(operative word MAY) have been in violation of AR Law. This still does not excuse the LEO from taking the weapon. Where I worked,if a weapon was recovered from a NON PERMITTED person WITHOUT FOID or any other FORM OF CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE,and the weapon was NOT encased,then the weapon would be held and the PERSON CHARGED with Unlawful Use of Weapon(ILCS 720 5/24) The weapons information would be incorporated into the arrest report,the Gun Desk would be called to verify that the gun is or is not registered,and then the weapon would be inventoried,sealed in a bag and stored in safe storage until disposition.Additionally,the vehicle would be impounded as well.If the weapon was secured in a case,locked,we would need a warrant to obtain the weapon and to open the case.
IF the person HAD valid FOID and/or a permit(yes Illinois allows for a permit called a Firearms Control Card,with severe restrictions) Then the weapon would be secured DURING THE STOP,verified thru the gun desk and returned to the owner at the completion of the stop.
In the ARKANSAS Case,based on what is written here, the person DID NOT have an AK permit,so the weapon should have been encased.The person did violate the current AK law regarding weapons. A new dynamic,(the passage act) that was mentioned is a VERY OLD law that,according to my research has not been repealed or amended.Having said that,the person whom had his weapon "taken" (stolen) by the Trooper DOES HAVE a valid foundation for a Civil Action. I would suggest that the person contact a competent attorney,ask the NRA for help and consider filing Charges against the Trooper,his agency and the State for CR Violations.
The OTHER dynamic that MAY exist for this person is that if he was a TRANSIENT RESIDENT of AK(about to move there but not residing there) and had a permit from any other state,he would have been in CLEAR compliance to the vehicular carrying of a firearm under AK State Law. Im researching further and WILL post the ENTIRE law that relates to this matter so that everyone is CLEAR about it as opposed to the speculations Im reading here.

And YES there is a JD after my name.




A

Well look at that. If the person in the OP had followed my methods, which the foaming at the mouth "I shall not be infringed" crowd chooses to mock, this incident never would have happened. I never said the LEO was in the right and as I have stated the LEO's are very often in the wrong. This is why you default to the methods least likely to bring about trouble, be prepared for ignorant LEOs, and you never have these issues. Apparently this makes me part of the problem rather than the solution in some people's eyes.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Well look at that. If the person in the OP had followed my methods, which the foaming at the mouth "I shall not be infringed" crowd chooses to mock, this incident never would have happened. I never said the LEO was in the right and as I have stated the LEO's are very often in the wrong. This is why you default to the methods least likely to bring about trouble, be prepared for ignorant LEOs, and you never have these issues. Apparently this makes me part of the problem rather than the solution in some people's eyes.

So, what you are saying is do whatever the nice officer tells you to do, regardless of what such things as statutes and the 4th amendment say, is not being "part of the problem?" It's just making life easier for everyone, especially you?

Let me ask you this, Rich_S. You are eating lunch with your kids (even if you haven't reproduced, let's pretend that you have) in McDonald's. A police officer comes up to you and says, "Excuse me, sir. Kidnapping is a crime in this state. I need to see some identification from you and those kids you have with you in order to verify that you haven't kidnapped them. If you can't provide satisfactory identification, I'm afraid you'll have to come to the station to be fingerprinted so we can verify you aren't a kidnapper. And, I hope you understand, for the safety of the children, we will have to transport you in separate vehicles. IF we can verify you are in possession of those children legally, we will return them to you and you can be on your way. You understand, right? We are just out here trying to prevent kidnappings."

Would that be OK with you? It's for the sake of the children, after all.

Sound silly? Let me ask you, where do you draw the line?

 

[Rich_S]

So, what you are saying is do whatever the nice officer tells you to do, regardless of what such things as statutes and the 4th amendment say, is not being "part of the problem?" It's just making life easier for everyone, especially you?

Let me ask you this, Rich_S. You are eating lunch with your kids (even if you haven't reproduced, let's pretend that you have) in McDonald's. A police officer comes up to you and says, "Excuse me, sir. Kidnapping is a crime in this state. I need to see some identification from you and those kids you have with you in order to verify that you haven't kidnapped them. If you can't provide satisfactory identification, I'm afraid you'll have to come to the station to be fingerprinted so we can verify you aren't a kidnapper. And, I hope you understand, for the safety of the children, we will have to transport you in separate vehicles. IF we can verify you are in possession of those children legally, we will return them to you and you can be on your way. You understand, right? We are just out here trying to prevent kidnappings."

Would that be OK with you? It's for the sake of the children, after all.

Sound silly? Let me ask you, where do you draw the line?

Let's forget about your asinine scenario and go back to the OP. If you were transporting a firearm in a car and an LEO stopped you and said he was taking the firearm from you what would you do? Punch him in the nose?
If it were me I'd tell him he was in the wrong and then try to convince him not to take my firearm. If he insisted on taking the gun what recourse would anyone really have? You would have to sort it out in the courts. I'll say it again. The LEO in the OP was in the wrong and LEO's are commonly ignorant when it comes to firearms laws. This is why I practice caution. Why do you have issues with that? That's rhetorical BTW....

 

[Hamilton Felix]

Posted by cortchubby:
"You should have your brother in law contact the NRA, the ACLU and any of a myriad of Attorneys that are "gun case attorneys". If it has been 6 months and he still is hesitant about taking action that would lead me(or 12 other people) to believe that there is something more to this case than is being related here. If that is NOT the case,PUSH HIM TO DO THIS. PUSH HARD. IF this is exactly how this case happened then he on behalf of all CCW people in this COUNTRY needs to step to the line and fight."

On principle,Sir, I agree with you 100% Having spent many thousands on attornies over the years, sometimes to lose and sometimes to win far less than I spent, I have to point out that one's rights under the law sometimes differ from Real Life. If the tale is accurate as told, then clearly, violation or not, the gentleman was "robbed under color of law." No way would an honest Officer seize anything of value and fail to document that seizure with a receipt. The fact there was no firearms charge filed makes it all pretty clear. And I'd bet a dollar against a dogturd that the gun was not destroyed and resides today ina private collection.

OK, let's lay it out in the Real World:
The last 1911 I bought was a Springfield Trophy Match for $1,100.
The last retainer I handed to an Attorney was $5,000. The case used up far more than that before it was over.

I don't doubt that the "Sorry that Trooper was fired and the gun was destroyed" response was at least partially false, and most likely entirely a lie. The intent was to make the complainant shut up and go away. I'd also bet he was told that over the phone. If he has it in writing and signed by a high ranking Trooper, that's much better.

Let's assume our complainant does have documentation, the Form 4473 showing he purchased the gun (could have been a private sale with no documentation at all), the ticket showing which Trooper stopped him and when. He still has no proof the Trooper took the gun. Modern Officers are generally equipped with cameras in the patrol vehicle and wireless microphones, which they can turn off at will. But videos making the Officer look bad often disappear or the recorder has an unexplained "malfunction." And that gun certainly will NOT turn up as evidence, unless that Trooper has made serious enemies within his agency.

So our man is in the right. He spends maybe ten or fifteen grand and a bunch of vacation time going to Court (I've never heard of the ACLU defending a gun owner or the Second Amendment, though I'd love to see it happen). He gets lucky, the agency decides not to spend a bunch of taxpayers' money defending its "honor," and somebody actually admits a gun was taken. I know, I know, we're getting into the realm of wishful thinking and fantasy here, but let's take this dream all the way and say a Court finally orders the agency to return his gun. Mostly likely, the gun still "can't be found," even though documentation of its destruction is strangely missing.

So our man has now spent ten times the value of his gun and a lot of his time. "Justice has been done." Whether or not he ever sees his gun again, he has made an enemy of the State of Arkansas, all of its Troopers and probably a lot of County and Municipal Officers. He has made "the list." From now on, driving in Arkansas will be a very expensive and unpleasant experience for him. And that's at the very least. Troopers who can take something of his, can just as easily drop something into his car that is not his...

Maybe our man has not said or done anything because he's enough of a Realist to know that a Police agency, or even one rogue Officer, can destroy his life (I've seen it happen). It's easy for us to sit here and call him a coward and quote Edmund Burke about evil prevailing when good men do nothing, but perhaps he has a family. Many would characterize taking on the mafia as brave, foolhardy or both. But taking on the State Police is much, much worse. Granted, if he has a powerful pro-gun organization and a friendly reporter or two on his side, it shades the odds a bit. Still, should this man subject his family and himself to this avoidable risk? Police agencies do not forgive and forget.

I'm not making his choice for him. And nobody makes my choices for me. I'm just saying there's a lot more here than simply one 1911 to consider.

A personal observation: Justice very seldom comes from Courts.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Let's forget about your asinine scenario and go back to the OP. If you were transporting a firearm in a car and an LEO stopped you and said he was taking the firearm from you what would you do? Punch him in the nose?

I can tell you what I won't do. I won't change the way that I LEGALLY transport, possess and carry my firearms because some cop either out of ignorance, arrogance or hatred towards armed citizens might take my LEGALLY transported, possessed and carried firearm from me and/or confiscate my LEGALLY transported, possessed and carried firearm. I will not live my life to cater to the whims, opinions and possible illegal actions of police officers. That's what this discussion is about.

To answer your question which is completely unrelated to this discussion:
I would state plainly and clearly to the officer, hopefully in front of witnesses that I do not consent to any search or seizure of my property without a warrant from a court with proper jurisdiction. If I am asked to exit the vehicle, I will lock the doors behind me and pocket the keys. I will not physically resist the officer, nor physically assault the officer - but I will not offer cooperation nor give consent to an officer's demands that are likely to violate my 4th amendment rights.

If he chooses to proceed with actions without my consent, then we will settle the situation in court, with the burden being upon the officer to prove that he had reasonable suspicion justifying his actions. If you give consent and offer cooperation than you have given up your very first defense in court - the officer is no longer required to prove reasonable suspicion.

And you say my scenario is assinine? Really? What the hell is the difference between having children in your possession and possessing a fiream in a legal manner? You don't take precautions against illegal seizure of your children in public by police officers do you? Why do advocate that it is necessary to take precautions against illegal seizure of firearms in public by police officers?

 

[NavyLCDR]

A personal observation: Justice very seldom comes from Courts.

I must respectfully disagree with that statement, unless "that an average person can financially afford" is added after the word Justice.

 

[snatale42]

I would also have to question why someome without a concealed carry permit was transporting a gun in a vehicle in plain view. I would have at minimum locked it up in a case.

You answered your own question, because he DIDN'T have a concealed carry permit. Outside of MA people don't need permits just to own guns. The law in almost all free states say no permit, open only, in a vehicle that means in plain view. I know people that put there guns on their dashboards. Kinda stupid but completely legal.

 

[NavyLCDR]

You answered your own question, because he DIDN'T have a concealed carry permit. Outside of MA people don't need permits just to own guns. The law in almost all free states say no permit, open only, in a vehicle that means in plain view. I know people that put there guns on their dashboards. Kinda stupid but completely legal.

However, respectfully, most of those same states also allow exceptions for firearms being carried unloaded and in a case (sometimes requiring the case to be locked). But, why should I lock my firearm in a case when there is no legal requirement to do so, if I don't choose to? Oh....so a police officer won't get his panties in a bunch... never mind.

 

[snatale42]

However, respectfully, most of those same states also allow exceptions for firearms being carried unloaded and in a case (sometimes requiring the case to be locked). But, why should I lock my firearm in a case when there is no legal requirement to do so, if I don't choose to? Oh....so a police officer won't get his panties in a bunch... never mind.

I think you completely misunderstood the point I'm making. I'm not saying it's stupid because it's not locked. It stupid because crap on your dashboard fly's around!

 

[NavyLCDR]

I think you completely misunderstood the point I'm making. I'm not saying it's stupid because it's not locked. It stupid because crap on your dashboard fly's around!

Yes, I did understand what you were saying. My comment about having to lock the gun up was really unrelated... .

 

[Hamilton Felix]

Originally Posted by Hamilton Felix
A personal observation: Justice very seldom comes from Courts.

Originally Posted by NavyLCDR
I must respectfully disagree with that statement, unless "that an average person can financially afford" is added after the word Justice.

Heh, heh, (he chuckles), good point. What's that popular phrase again? Oh yeah, "all the justice money can buy."

Point taken. I probably have a more cynical outlook on Police and Courts than you. But I'd be the first to admit that a LOT of our problems come from jurors so ignorant they do not know they are the final arbiter of law, or that they always judge both the Law and the Accused.

If the tale is as told, I do hope the gentleman gets his gun back. But I think it unlikely.

BTW, refusing consent to search is fine, and I'd certainly do so. Heck, if you step out of the car go ahead and "accidentally" lock the keys inside (assuming you have a well hidden spare on the car). Maybe you'll get lucky and the cop will just hand you a ticket and laugh at you as he drives away. But any cop who wants to search has only to detain you while he calls the Dept. K-9 "drug dog" and then make sure the dog "alerts" on your trunk (drug dogs actually give a lot of false alerts, and any decent trainer can give the dog a hidden cue to alert). At that point, the search WILL happen.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I probably have a more cynical outlook on Police and Courts than you.

Have you read my posts?!? Some people do tend to confuse realism with cynicism, though.

But I'd be the first to admit that a LOT of our problems come from jurors so ignorant they do not know they are the final arbiter of law, or that they always judge both the Law and the Accused.

Amen to that.

BTW, refusing consent to search is fine, and I'd certainly do so. Heck, if you step out of the car go ahead and "accidentally" lock the keys inside (assuming you have a well hidden spare on the car).

Actually I do have a well hidden key on my car that only opens the doors but won't work the ignition. Never thought of using it during a traffic stop. I've personally never been asked to consent to a search by a police officer. Thanks for the suggestion!

But any cop who wants to search has only to detain you while he calls the Dept. K-9 "drug dog" and then make sure the dog "alerts" on your trunk (drug dogs actually give a lot of false alerts, and any decent trainer can give the dog a hidden cue to alert). At that point, the search WILL happen.

Not legally. Here's why. I am stopped for speeding. Cop sees a rifle on my back seat. Asks me if that is the only gun I have. I say, no, I have an unloaded handgun lawfully locked in the trunk. Cop asks me to open the trunk so he can check to see if the gun is unloaded. I refuse. At this point the police officer has no reasonable or articulable suspicion that there is anything illegal in my trunk, because in Washington and most states there is nothing illegal about carrying an unloaded handgun locked in the trunk. If all other conditions are legal - the rifle, driver's license, etc. - it is against the 4th amendment for the officer to detain me any longer than necessary to handle the speeding violation. At the point where he detains me longer than necessary to write the speeding ticket, without my consent, he is violating the 4th amendment.

Now, if it just happens that he has the dog with him during the initial stop, and he does not have to detain me for any extra period of time - the dog sniffing the trunk during the traffic stop would fall under "plain sight" search rules, and if the dog alerted, that would establish probable cause for a search of the trunk. I still would not consent, however.