What If LEO Wants My Weapon During Traffic Stop?!

[ljnowell]

I would expect nothing less from a government ass kisser like you.

Do you recognize these words: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Now, would you care to explain to me how it is wrong to say that the government has infringed upon the 2nd Amendment Right of the citizen to keep an bear arms to such an extent that it is now impossible for the citizen to fulfill their duty to throw off a tyrannical government? The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that the citizen maintained the capability to provide for themselves a free state - just like the founding fathers had just done against the British government. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was the first step taken by the government to ensure that the citizen would be unable to throw off the government which is their duty to do as stated in the Declaration of Independence.



Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Constitutionality of the government's actions. Governments have been violating citizens' God given rights and jailing them in violation of those rights ever since the first government was ever instituted.

Then what exactly is your point? That you could be a horses ass and find yourself in jail, but you would be right? Guess what, you're still in jail. Right or wrong doesn't matter when your ass is in jail.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Then what exactly is your point? That you could be a horses ass and find yourself in jail, but you would be right? Guess what, you're still in jail. Right or wrong doesn't matter when your ass is in jail.

My point is that we as American citizens do not have to agree that the actions of the government are proper and constitutional just because a majority of Supreme Court justices who are appointed by the government tell us that the government's actions are proper and Constitutional. Will some people go to jail because they believe and act strongly enough in defiance of the government? Sure they will. But just because you are not willing to go to jail for your beliefs does not mean you have to agree with the government. People like nosreme are just going to agree that the government is right because the panel of judges appointed by that same government says the government is right. Where would we be if the founding fathers were in agreement with that idea? We would all still be singing God Save the Queen as our national anthem.

The 2nd Amendment was written by a group of men who had just overthrown their government using the exact same firearms that the government had available. They wrote the 2nd Amendment to ensure that the citizen would always have the exact same arms available to them as their government to ensure that they could remove that government should the need arise. Through "reasonable regulation" - supported by the US Supreme Court - our government has completely neutered the 2nd Amendment and rendered it useless for the purpose for which it was originally written.

All that being said, there is still no reason for any American citizen to say the government is right just because a panel of judges appointed by the government says the government is right - but the vast majority of American citizens will.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Fear induced slavery...pathetic.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[ljnowell]

My point is that we as American citizens do not have to agree that the actions of the government are proper and constitutional just because a majority of Supreme Court justices who are appointed by the government tell us that the government's actions are proper and Constitutional. Will some people go to jail because they believe and act strongly enough in defiance of the government? Sure they will. But just because you are not willing to go to jail for your beliefs does not mean you have to agree with the government. People like nosreme are just going to agree that the government is right because the panel of judges appointed by that same government says the government is right. Where would we be if the founding fathers were in agreement with that idea? We would all still be singing God Save the Queen as our national anthem.

The 2nd Amendment was written by a group of men who had just overthrown their government using the exact same firearms that the government had available. They wrote the 2nd Amendment to ensure that the citizen would always have the exact same arms available to them as their government to ensure that they could remove that government should the need arise. Through "reasonable regulation" - supported by the US Supreme Court - our government has completely neutered the 2nd Amendment and rendered it useless for the purpose for which it was originally written.

All that being said, there is still no reason for any American citizen to say the government is right just because a panel of judges appointed by the government says the government is right - but the vast majority of American citizens will.

Then you are simply arguing semantics, which makes this conversation worthless.

 

[whodat2710]

... blatantly unconstitutional practice of "stop and frisk,"...

When the Supreme Court says it's constitutional, it is, no matter what yahoos on gun and right-wing nonthinker forums say.

Since you didn't understand NavyLCDR's reply and chose instead to perform a typically progressive-liberal rant about

"misinformed, preposterous, flatly wrong take on any legal topic I've ever seen in an internet forum... blah blah blah.

without refuting anything he said with facts, try this one on for size.
-

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A "stop and frisk" translated into the 4th Amendment is an unreasonable search unless there is probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and the specific things to be searched FOR when obtaining a warrant. If you think the Supremes aren't a group of partisan hacks that are politically rather than Constitutionally motivated, then explain all the 5-4 votes along party lines. They spend their time trying to write flowery legaleeze decisions to back up what there agenda supports.
-
Regarding the OP, unless you have a record of violent conduct there should be no reason for a cop to want a weapon brought into play when it was previously secured and not an issue. Keep your hands visible, and I would recommend driving with your REQUIRED paperwork (DL, insurance, car registration) in easy reach without having to reach for your wallet while he is at your window. I generally toss my wallet in the center console (back problems) and if I was to get pulled over I would get it before he got out of his car.

 

[whodat2710]

More pseudo-legal nonsense by people who learn their law from like-minded anti-cop, anti-law non-lawyers on the internet. "Stop and frisk" has always constituted an exception to the 4th amendment warrant requirement in that the stop does NOT require probable cause (or a warrant), just reasonable belief by an LEO that a crime has just been or is about to be committed and the LEO can frisk w/o a search warrant if he/she reasonably believes that the subject may be armed.

Point one - how many acceptable "exceptions to" the Bill of Rights is acceptable? You are a dumb-a$$.
-
Point two - stop and frisk has nothing to do with whether a "crime has just been or is about to be committed", ask a New York cop. They will spend the day stopping and frisking anyone that "looks suspicious". Have you ever walked down the street in NYC? EVERYONE LOOKS SUSPICIOUS! You are a dumb-a$$.
-
Point three - If a cop "reasonably believes that the subject may be armed" SO WHAT? Is THAT not a Constitutionally protected right as well? Is exercising your rights cause for concern? You are a dumb-a$$.
-
Last point - Progressive Liberal government lackeys such as yourself LOVE to call a strict adherence to our founding documents "pseudo-legal nonsense" when they are in fact the basis for all law in this country. They are the precedent to which all laws are supposed to comply. and the fact that whether any particular law being determined "Constitutional" by the gang of nine depends solely on which party has control of them is what is pure pseudo-legal nonsense.
-
Oh, did I mention that You are a dumb-a$$?

 

[whodat2710]

You should write a letter to that effect to the Supreme Court. When they see it came from a 2A supporter and conspicuously authoritative-sounding gun forum poster on constitutional law issues, I'm sure they'll quickly reconsider and reverse as insufficiently thought-out their nearly 40 year-old Terry v. Ohio decision (conviction was for carrying a concealed weapon) stating otherwise.

I am well versed in Constitutional Law regarding my rights. Maybe you should actually read the Terry V Ohio decision. The use of these random stop and frisk searches as performed frequently on the streets of big cities like NYC are pushing the limits of that decision, and will be challenged soon now that more people are legally carrying firearms. Here's a tidbit from the concurring opinion that you may find interesting:

There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation.

 

[BluesStringer]

You should write a letter to that effect to the Supreme Court. When they see it came from a 2A supporter and conspicuously authoritative-sounding gun forum poster on constitutional law issues, I'm sure they'll quickly reconsider and reverse as insufficiently thought-out their nearly 40 year-old Terry v. Ohio decision (conviction was for carrying a concealed weapon) stating otherwise.

The Terry ruling is nowhere near as supportive of unrestricted stop and frisks as you purposely, knowingly and dishonestly imply. It does uphold a lesser standard than probable cause, the need for warrants etc., which to many of us is still a government overreach for which the Supremes nor anyone else has the authority to impose, but it also says in the concurring opinion by Harlan that reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime either about to be or having been committed is required before a stop and frisk is legal under that ruling. No lawful activity can also serve as RAS, including openly carrying a gun, or being black in a white neighborhood or vice-versa, or having day-glo hair or an 18" afro with a black power comb sticking out of it, and that too has been subsequently upheld by the Supremes citing Terry as the basis for the ruling, so as usual, you're just full of leftist, progressive, government ass kissing crap.

Blues

 

[Deanimator]

Concurring opinions are not controlling (much as right-wingers love to cherry pick from them as if they are), but this one simply means, "cops need to be able to explain what made them suspicious rather than relying on hunches (or worse, stop because of skin color, tattoos, bizarre facial hair, body odor..." It was nothing more than a common sense clarification of the majority opinion and is fully consistent with what I wrote.

They can always lie and say they smelled marijuana, and when they bring out a drug sniffing dog, they can give it a non-verbal queue to "alert" to nonexistent drugs...

 

[Deanimator]

These days I'd like to think that most cops are too well-trained and professional to engage in that kind of activity.

Link Removed
"You're MUCH too trusting..."

 

[whodat2710]

Concurring opinions are not controlling (much as right-wingers love to cherry pick from them as if they are), but this one simply means, "cops need to be able to explain what made them suspicious rather than relying on hunches (or worse, stop because of skin color, tattoos, bizarre facial hair, body odor..." It was nothing more than a common sense clarification of the majority opinion and is fully consistent with what I wrote .

Let's fact check that one....

More pseudo-legal nonsense by people who learn their law from like-minded anti-cop, anti-law non-lawyers on the internet. "Stop and frisk" has always constituted an exception to the 4th amendment warrant requirement in that the stop does NOT require probable cause (or a warrant), just reasonable belief by an LEO that a crime has just been or is about to be committed and the LEO can frisk w/o a search warrant if he/she reasonably believes that the subject may be armed.

See, what I read is that you don't understand what a concurring opinion is. A dissenting opinion is one that agrees with the MINORITY of the court, while a concurring opinion agrees with the MAJORITY of the court. These jackwagons probably do rock-paper-scissors to determine who delivers the courts opinion once the vote has been taken; they also don't trust each other enough to let one statement speak for them all, so concurring opinions are written that further explain other factors considered by those that voted with the majority, but who's specific nuggets of wisdom did not receive a majority vote. This is a note from Wiki regarding concurring opinions and case law:

Occasionally, a judge will use a concurring opinion to signal that he or she is open to certain types of "test cases" that would facilitate the development of a new legal rule, and in turn, such a concurring opinion may become more famous than the majority opinion in the same case. A well-known example of this phenomenon is Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (1944).

-
Now back to the issue at hand where your first post was "fully consistent"... Note what I highlighted in red. The actual stipulation, which you did not argue with, is that the officer reasonably believes that the subject may be armed AND that there is a reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime either about to be or having been committed. This simple omission is a consistent lefty tactic to win an argument, but it rarely works against the well-informed. Don't try and peddle your Prog-Lib crap around here, you will be called on it every time.

 

[whodat2710]

Hey nosreme, why don't you read through this: Link Removed including the dissenting opinion so you can see what will cause this to be overturned as Unconstitutional. We've already seen video of cops saying the Constitution doesn't matter because Obama doesn't follow it. We also just saw DC's gun carry ban fall. Give it time an this will be next to go.

 

[BluesStringer]

None of this matters here because nonlawyers at both political extremes aren't the slightest bit interested in the process (which few of them understand), just in the outcome..

Well, yeah, that and the fact that lawyers are taught, employed by and answerable to other lawyers, and those who do, get rich from milking that process to the furthest extremes beyond credulity that society will tolerate, which is to say, the limit has started to be reached and push-back from the right-wingers you lament as ignorant, actually threatens the illegitimate processes that you counted on to make a living. Still, your knowledge of "process" doesn't fool us. You're an advocate for the furthest thing from Constitutional liberty as you can squeeze some amount of legitimacy out of through recounting the Constitutional bastardization throughout American legal history.

Blues

 

[Axeanda45]

In Ohio you have to surrender your weapon by law. They are required to return it in the condition they received it in.

ABSOLUTE 100% Bullchit..... NOWHERE IN ANY OHIO CODE DOES IT SAY YOU MUST GIVE THEM YOUR WEAPON...

I have on SEVERAL occasions REFUSED to give up my weapon to a cop IN OHIO during a traffic stop...... The ONLY way they can LEGALLY disarm you without your consent is if they can articulate WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO WARRANT THIS.... What kind of dangerous display/action have you shown to them that would show you are a danger to them?

IF they disarm you WITHOUT being able to articulate A VALID REASON why, they have just commited a federal offense, "deprivation of rights under color of law" and you can sue them personally for it, not just the city or state...

 

[Axeanda45]

One thing all these panty wetting govt azzkissers totally freak out about (just watch how they react to what I am about to say) is that they cannot handle someone who says (and 100% will do what he says) that I WILL NOT COMPLY with ANY UnConstitutional (determined by my own reading of the actual words the Constitution is written in) orders.....

Example: I am pulled over for speeding, in a must-inform state, and the officer asks to "hold" my weapon... My answer is no..... you may NOT..... If he presses the issue, I then ask for WHAT HAVE I DONE THAT YOU CAN ARTICULATE that proves that I am a danger to you..... If he cannot answer that to my satisfaction ( a valid reason could be I match a suspect in an armed robbery nearby), then he does NOT get my weapon.

*cue the idiots who now will claim I am just an internet tough-guy, etc.... what pathetic ******* with no backbones to stick up for anything yet belittle those who do/will*

 

[NavyLCDR]

what pathetic ******* with no backbones to stick up for anything yet belittle those who do/will*

And what is even worse is those that will actually offer their firearms for the LEO to fondle without even being asked... you know to be polite, courteous, respectful, and because the LEO just wants to go home safe at the end of the shift... even though offering up the lawfully possessed and carried firearm has absolutely nothing to do with any of those excuses.

 

[ljnowell]

I see this is still going further down the drain.

 

[ljnowell]

At least all the macho posturing about how tough and defiant some say they'd be during a cop stop provides lots of chuckles. For way too many, it's less about guns and what to do with them during a traffic stop than it is about than looking good in the shower (virtually speaking) and confirming tough guy, anti-govt conservative credentials by reciting the usual mantras. I wonder if any cultural anthropologists have ever looked at gun forums for modern-day vestiges of ancient tribal customs?

Yeah, the chest thumping that occurs on gun boards gets ridiculous. Most of the guys preaching how they would do this or that will politely call the cop sir and comply when not behind the keyboard.

It's just like the SHTF conversation when people bring up confiscation of firearms. 90% on a gun board say they would fight to the death. In reality 90% or more would probably hand them right over.

 

[Axeanda45]

What did I tell you? there are 2 of them right there who have nothing but belittling and name calling to show what they really are....

 

[Firefighterchen]

Half a dozen constitutionalist against two guys stroking each other's egos. Definitely amusing.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app