I notified and was complimented
- Thread starter Harleywood
- Start date
I find it interesting that states that require police officer notification in their laws only require people who are legally carrying with a license to notify, but no requirement for those illegally carrying to notify - but I suppose that would violate the 5th Amendment. Perfect example of the real purpose of gun control laws - to control the law abiding citizen.
gunnerbob
PEW Professional
We have a winner, ladies and gentlemen.
Exactly what right do you perceive is derived from keeping your possession of a gun a secret during a legitimate LEO stop? The right to "get the draw" on the officer?
every imposition on a law abiding citizen does not grant a right to a criminal. Do you think laws against incest grant criminals the right to have sex with their sisters?
every imposition on a law abiding citizen does not grant a right to a criminal. Do you think laws against incest grant criminals the right to have sex with their sisters?
The right of the people to be free from tyrannical government interference with their lawful actions and lawful possession of personal property. What preservation of public safety is enhanced by requiring a person who has already been licensed by the government to carry a firearm to notify a police officer of such license and possession of a firearm for which they are licensed? Isn't it the claim of the government that the license is required to ensure only those who do not pose a threat to public safety are allowed to legally carry a concealed firearm? What purpose is served to make it a criminal offense to not inform the government, upon official contact, of a license that same government has issued and inform the government of an object that is possessed in accordance with that license issued by that government other than to establish government tyranny?
Since we are talking about Ohio...
From the Ohio State Constitution
Link Removed
Article I: Bill of Rights
Inalienable rights.
§1 All men are, by nature, free and
independent, and have certain inalienable
rights, among which are those of
enjoying and defending life and liberty,
acquiring, possessing, and protecting
property, and seeking and obtaining
happiness and safety.
Axeanda45
Banned
The 5th ammendment you frigging idiot..... Are you really that stupid?
Sent from my SM-G900V using USA Carry mobile app
Ahhh...but the 5th Amendment only protects the criminals. The 4th Amendment protects both the criminals and the innocent.
A law against incest does not grant the right to have sex with their sisters (and why are you suggesting that it would be the male that would be committing incest? Although, if the brother and sister are both consenting adults, I believe it is a violation of their rights to make it a crime to have sex with each other.....but that's another subject.) However, a law against incest does grant the brother and the sister the right to keep their mouth shut about it, if they choose to. A law requiring those in possession of firearms to disclose such possession to the government must, according to the 5th Amendment, uphold the right of those in illegal possession of firearms to not disclose their possession of firearms to the government because that would be self-incrimination, whereas the person possessing firearms legally would not have such protection.
Axeanda45
Banned
The person possessing firearms legally does NOT LOSE THEIR 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS , no matter how much YOU think it does...
Sent from my SM-G900V using USA Carry mobile app
The Fifth Amendment does not provide a blanket right to refuse to answer questions.
The 5th amendment protects your right not to incriminate yourself...idiot.
Unless you can convince a judge that telling an LEO you are legally carrying a firearm would incriminate you, the 5th doesn't apply.
Next time, before you pontificate on something you don't understand try educating yourself beyond the 8th grade knowledge level before flapping your lips.
I was merely pointing out that the Federal Government, via the US Supreme Court does not recognize the 5th Amendment rights of the person whose testimony would not place them in danger of criminal indictment/conviction:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/542/177/
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt Cty. 542 U.S. 177 (2004)
" (c) Hiibel’s contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination. The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Walker,161 U. S. 591, 598, and protects only against disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used, Kastigar v. United States,406 U. S. 441, 445."
Yes, I am fully aware that individuals have rights which the various governments will not honor. However, if you are in legal possession of a firearm, a police officer has stopped you for a legitimate traffic stop and asks you if you have in your possession any firearms or a law requires you to disclose your license and possession of a firearm, the Federal government will not recognize a 5th Amendment right to remain silent. The Federal government will only recognize your 5th Amendment rights if you actually have something illegal to hide.
The Fifth Amendment does not provide a blanket right to refuse to answer questions.
The 5th amendment protects your right not to incriminate yourself...idiot.
Unless you can convince a judge that telling an LEO you are legally carrying a firearm would incriminate you, the 5th doesn't apply.
Next time, before you pontificate on something you don't understand try educating yourself beyond the 8th grade knowledge level before flapping your lips.
Axeanda45
Banned
Correct you effing azzhole.....
IF I REFUSE TO ABIDE BY THE EFFING IGNORANT IDIOTIC EFFING LAW THAT REQUIRES ME TO NOTIFY, THEN I AM REFUSING TO INCRIMINATE MYSELF FOR IGNORING THE UNEFFINGCONSTITUTIONAL BULLCRAP THAT REQUIRES ME TO DO IT....
Hence, l am USING my 5th ammendment RIGHT.... Legally. But you are too effing ignorant to comprehend this very simple concept.
Sent from my SM-G900V using USA Carry mobile app
Axeanda45
Banned
And you havent a clue either.... By refusing to abide by an unconstitutional law which requires me to inform, l am in fact excersizing my 5th amendment RIGHT to NOT incriminate myself for breaking that same effing law....
Sent from my SM-G900V using USA Carry mobile app
Why can't you just make a well reasoned rebuttal without the insults and name calling? Maybe people would take you more seriously without the childish temper tantrums.
Despite your lack of ability to be polite, you are correct.
Axeanda45
Banned
Childish or not, l made my point and exposed how wrong you were... Why did you say l was wrong in the first place and pizz me off?
Perhaps you should know more about what you are claiming before saying it, you and l have been through this before, me saying something and you claiming l was wrong, YET, each time we have, YOU were the one proven to be wrong....
Sent from my SM-G900V using USA Carry mobile app
And would you kindly post a citation to where I said you were wrong? Or where any of my statements were incorrect? I stated in post #9 that the 5th Amendment only protects criminals...I never stated that YOU would NOT be protected by the 5th Amendment. You then claimed that a person does not lose their 5th Amendment rights by lawfully possessing a firearm - a claim which I never made. When I posted the US Supreme Court decision that rules that the 5th Amendment does not apply to people who have nothing illegal to hide, then you, rightfully, explained that the 5th Amendment would apply to your lawful possession of a firearm if it was the very reason for violating another law. So, first, you have failed to prove that I was wrong. And second you get all pizzed off just because people don't agree with you - you've shown that time and time again. Boo hoo, just keep kicking and banging your head on the floor, it doesn't impress us.
Getting past your temper tantrums it is an interesting conundrum:
1. The person in illegal possession of a firearm cannot be compelled to notify a law enforcement officer of that firearm because that would be self-incrimination (5th Amendment).
2. The person in legal possession of a firearm can be required, by law, to notify a law enforcement officer, although I agree that such a law is unconstitutional, it still exists. No 5th Amendment protection for violating the notification law by itself because to notify a LEO of legal possession of an object should not (although in reality is does) result of a danger of arrest, charging with a crime or conviction.
3. Once the notification law is violated by a person in legal possession of a firearm, that person cannot be compelled to admit that they have a legal firearm in their lawful possession because that would be self incrimination of violating the notification law. (5th Amendment).
So, get stopped for speeding in Ohio. Subject stopped makes no mention of his CHL or the firearm he is lawfully carrying. Officer for some reason discovers from a records check that the individual has a CHL and returns to the window to ask the subject, "Do you have a firearm in your possession today?" The subject replies, "I am exercising my 5th Amendment right to remain silent." Unless the officer has evidence that rises to the level of probable cause to believe the subject actually possesses a firearm, the only thing the LEO has legal authority to do is pack sand because the US Supreme Court has upheld that exercising your 5th Amendment rights cannot be used as evidence of guilt.
Quiet Observer
Member
I do not understand why some are citing the protection against self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. If one has a permit to carry recognized by the state and is carrying according to the regulations set by that state, what is the criminal action to be charged? Would presenting one’s up-to-date driver’s license and registration be self-incriminating? There is no charge of “complying with the law”.
