Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
2/23/2017 5:55:53 PM
Posted: 8/3/2001 11:23:29 PM EST
From the hkpro.com msg boards: http://ubb.hkpro.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001438.html
Link Posted: 8/3/2001 11:40:19 PM EST
It's the 3rd post down, he explains the stop in better detail further down the thread. $300 damage to the AR's finish...
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 12:17:53 AM EST
[url]http://ubb.hkpro.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001438.html[/url]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 4:44:24 AM EST
Dropping someone's weapon and damaging it is a bad deal. His Department can and should pay the owner for the damage. The officer should not have made any of those stupid comments, either. That was extremely unprofessional. As far as "running" the serial # of the weapons in question, that is not a search, is quite legal, and makes good sense. I check almost every firearm I run across to see if it is stolen, just like I check every car I stop. If you have ever had a gun stolen from you, probably the only way you are going to get it back is if some officer, somewhere, runs into it and checks it for being stolen. I have recovered stolen weapons like this, and it always gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to get someone's guns back to them. It is much more satisfying than recovering a stolen car or a TV.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 6:10:10 AM EST
Post from natez -
As far as "running" the serial # of the weapons in question, that is not a search, is quite legal, and makes good sense. I check almost every firearm I run across to see if it is stolen, just like I check every car I stop. If you have ever had a gun stolen from you, probably the only way you are going to get it back is if some officer, somewhere, runs into it and checks it for being stolen. I have recovered stolen weapons like this, and it always gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to get someone's guns back to them. It is much more satisfying than recovering a stolen car or a TV.
View Quote
I don't think it's legal, I think it's a search without either reasonable suspicion or without probable cause. I've had six weapons stolen from me over the years, the last one an HK-91 at the Astrohall Show in Houston! If I thought you could recover each one of them, I would not ask you to do a numbers run on the weapons that you come across in traffic stops. You don't check their income tax returns for any discrepancies during the stop, why should it be open season on weapons? Because they're there? I was stopped by a couple of Texas Highway patrolmen on Hwy 287 near Henrietta, Texas, back around 1995. They couldn't take their eyes off the Colt Shorty that I had in the rifle rack in the rear window of my pickup. They informed me that they needed to take possession of the weapon during the 'routine traffic stop' in order for them to run the serial numbers to see if the weapon was stolen. Why, does it look stolen?[:D] When they got it back in their cruiser, they proceeded to break it open to look for that elusive serial number on the INSIDE OF THE RECEIVER! They were looking through a little pamphlet that was probably a 'guide to illegal M-16 parts in AR-15s' or something like that. Are you telling me that they had not just taken the equivalent of a breathalyzer test on my Colt on the side of the highway without any suspicious circumstances, and without any sort of probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed? I am supposed to be safe in my person and papers on the side of the highway without any interference from the State, it agents or employees, and yet my Colt was 'finger f***d' by a couple of Texas' finest. Yeah, I feel safer already. Not. What if that particular Colt was one that was shipped with the M-16 bolt carrier installed? I've bought quite a few from distributors just like that in my early days as an FFL. I suppose I would have been arrested and the weapon confiscated! When was the motto changed from 'To serve and protect' to 'To delay and recover'? Eric The(Sorry,ThisIsPersonal,AndIt'sAboutRights!)­Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 6:18:07 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 6:41:56 AM EST
I know Garand Shooter, we've taught our LEOs well. We are the enemy, our properties are the contraband, we've all done something wrong, we just haven't been caught and convicted yet! To me, AR-15s are objects of great utilitarian beauty, to the LEOs they are just weapons made to be illegally altered and illegally carried. We just haven't had the opportunity to alter them YET (but we will). Drugs should not be decriminalized, but they are a health issue and should be treated as any other health issue might be treated. Not with BHTs kicking down doors in the middle of the night. But with medical treatment, etc. Eric The(lib..WellYouKnowTheRest)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 6:56:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/4/2001 6:54:33 AM EST by SGB]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 7:08:19 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 7:56:19 AM EST
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: I know Garand Shooter, we've taught our LEOs well. We are the enemy, our properties are the contraband, we've all done something wrong, we just haven't been caught and convicted yet! To me, AR-15s are objects of great utilitarian beauty, to the LEOs they are just weapons made to be illegally altered and illegally carried. We just haven't had the opportunity to alter them YET (but we will). Drugs should not be decriminalized, but they are a health issue and should be treated as any other health issue might be treated. Not with BHTs kicking down doors in the middle of the night. But with medical treatment, etc. Eric The(lib..WellYouKnowTheRest)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
While I disagree to a point with you about legalization, we both can agree that the war on drugs has cost us greatly, and to no effect. I can go out and find any illegal narcotic I want in just about anyplace in the country. It has not stopped anything from coming in. In fact, it is easier for me to get narcotics than liquor around here.... there are only 3 liquor stores in the county and they are only open from 9-8 M-S, but I can get narcotics 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It has, however, immensely swelled the ranks of both federal and local LEO's, greatly increased their powers, while chipping away at our rights. It is indefensible. As long as there is a demand for a product, the market will provide it, be it above or underground. This simple fact of economics is what the government is using to increase its power. They cannot win, they know they cannot win, but by fighting and continuing to lose they always have an excuse for that next power grab. The drug trade is violent because the government has driven into the hands of the violent. Many other business's have just as much cash changing ahnds, but I have never heard of diamond brokers having a turf war.
View Quote
Well said, Garand_Shooter.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 8:08:21 AM EST
Dang, Garand_Shooter, I have underestimated you completely. I believe I owe you an opology... I had no idea you had it like that. Any narcotic anytime! All this time I thought you had the squarest pants in here(not that thats a bad thing). I live in the liberal armpit of the world and it's not like that here... maybe you need a new neighborhood.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 8:16:33 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 8:38:22 AM EST
I suppose you could be right. I may be out of touch with whats really going on but I have got my eyes open. Dealers in my neighborhood don't last long. Too many people like me that are nosy bastards. What's a truck stop? I can tell you nothing that you mentioned is waiting for "me"there. I don't even put bug spay on my tomatoes. All that stuff you entioned would make very good bug spray. In the "meth" manufacturing process screwing up the recipie causes deadly off gassing of I believe phosphine gas. I used to work for a chemical disposal company. We did lab cleanups. The toxic waste left behind by these guys is worse than the 70's semiconductor industry. Great bug spray. I don't get it only a friggin zipperhead would put shit like that inside themselves.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 8:43:31 AM EST
Taking possession of a firearm and running the serial number IS a search. The only way it wouldn't be is if the rifle was in a place where they could see the serial number without moving the rifle, then it's in plain view and they can run it without probable cause or your consent. If the rifle is cased, in a rack, on your person, etc. and they have to manipulate it in order to get the serial number, it's a search. You can't stop citizens who are legally carrying guns and randomly run those guns to 'see if they are stolen' without either probable cause or the consent of the citizen. And damaging the weapon during that process is inexcusable. I know in states that allow citizens to get carry permits, some officers who stop folks who have CCW's routinely take the gun away for the duration of the traffic stop 'for their safety', and routinely run the serial number. In my opinion, this is a questionable practice. Just because someone is legally carrying a gun doesn't mean that they're a threat- quite the opposite, usually. When I stop someone with a CCW I don't even ask if they're carrying- I assume they are, and it really doesn't affect the way I handle the stop. Where I work, I assume everyone has a gun anyway, and I react based on their actions and behavior, not their CCW status. I read that post, and the officer was out of line based on what was posted. He just opened the trunk without consent and started running guns. That was an unlawful search. The mere fact that the driver admitted he had more guns in the trunk does NOT equate to probable cause that any of them were stolen, especially since the driver had already produced his CCW (if that's still valid, the driver has no criminal history that would prohibit him from owning guns). The driver needs to make a complaint, and if the PD blows him off he needs to go to the state AG's office. This is the kind of crap that drives a big wedge between cops and law-abiding gun owners.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 12:10:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/4/2001 12:09:37 PM EST by OLY-M4gery]
Yeah, what 315 said. Plus it is just rude to reach into someone elses car, not to mention potentionally deadly if he decides to test the acceleration after he grabs a hold of the invading limb. It is clearly a search, and I would say without any foundation. I thought a CCW/CHL would perhaps put the officer "at ease" somewhat. The person that has the CCW/CHL has passed a background check, qualification course, and some type of deadly force training. In other words the are "certified" to have weapons. Weapons should be treated like other objects, Yes I hear the NRA and HCI screaming. I dbout most LEO's that stopped a moving van would unload it to run appliance numbers......they might be stolen. So why do it with guns. Of course it is all situational, what is a unreasonable search with one stop can be totally reasonable with another if only a few minor circumstnaces are different. I also noticed in the post the guy talking about the cop on a traffic stop asking him about his H+K case..... and someone saying I wouldn't have answered and kept walking. Good thinking, cops would call that an inapropriate response, a "no look" or maybe a "thousand yard stare" away from them. Think that would make them wonder about what skip is doing with a gun?? Just a little less than if he yelled "OH MY GOD" looked at the cop and ran away as the cop was asking him about the case. How do you get $300.00 damage to an AR's finish?? Did he drop it into a jet engine??? Kinda sounds like one of those guys that if their car gets scratched the whole thing has to be repainted to "color match" the paint job. (on a 78 chevette no less) Something doesn't seem right about that amount.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 12:23:13 PM EST
Cop bashers! The police are the ONLY ONES that prevent our democracy from becoming socialism.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 12:41:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/4/2001 12:38:47 PM EST by fight4yourrights]
However unless a complaint was filed and followed through with, this Officer will continue to give his fellow Officers a bad name.
View Quote
That sounds like a great way to get your name on the local LEO "F*ck with this guy list" Did you read the thread about the Michigan cops running plates and stalking people because they liked/disliked them? Now imagine that you've filed a complaint and cost the department money. To quote the motto of the Baltimore PD, "there are two kinds of people, cops and assh&les". They protect their own. I wouldn't really want to volunteer to make their list by filing a complaint over a few scratches.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 12:55:20 PM EST
And once again, Imbroglio contributes nothing of value to the conversation.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 1:02:07 PM EST
Originally Posted By Sparky315: And once again, Imbroglio contributes nothing of value to the conversation.
View Quote
If you don't get it, you haven't been paying attention! Imbrog|io has it together, I just think his sarcasm isn't always as obvious as it should be. Juggernaut
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 1:17:01 PM EST
It's been said before, but what the hell... Untill LEO's start policing their own, the public will have contempt for them when crap like this happens. Here's an idea... if you dont want people to bash LEO's, dont give them any reason to !!!! Make it known that in your department, any violation of the law or of citizens rights will be dealt with harshly. and BTW, why not go back to "protect and serve" just my .02[:\]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 1:17:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/4/2001 1:44:55 PM EST by SGB]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 1:37:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/4/2001 1:45:39 PM EST by SGB]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 1:46:38 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 1:53:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/4/2001 1:50:01 PM EST by SGB]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 1:57:22 PM EST
SGB, simmer down now.... My intention was NOT to bash LEO's, but rather to comment on why people may have contempt for them. The comment made by fight4yourrights about someone not wanting to file a complaint because they feared retaliation is a valid argument. There have been cases where LEO's have taken retribution on people who have filed complaints and after all, it is hard for some people to stand up to cops at all. They are in a position of power, even though that power comes from us, they still have the ability( if they want to) to single someone out and make life difficult for that person. it has happened before. I agree that if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. I also go back to what I said earlier...If you dont want people to bash LEO's, dont give them a reason to. my .03 [:D]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 3:05:10 PM EST
I will try to keep this short because I could get really long winded here because I firmly believe that we are not the law. We are not above the law, we are under the law just as you are and even have tougher requirements in some areas. As a LEO myself, I firmly believe in the oath that I took is just what is says. I am a representative of people and will be held accountable to the same laws. I truly hope this guys nails this dude to the wall because let's face it: HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED! If we are getting all the facts, this officer had no PC, nor did he have consent, his actions took him well beyond the boundries of a terry stop, he conducted a search by going into the trunk and seizing his weapons, aka checking serial numbers. It appears this gentleman was obeying his state laws, so there was no PC for any crimes being committed. Was there any suspicion of wrong doing at all? Was he free to leave at any time? This cop does these kinds of things because he thinks he knows better and isn't accountable to anyone. He needs to be held accountable. This gentleman needs to retain an attorney and file a complainant and then take his sorry A$$ to court. If this officer attempts retaliation, that's more fuel to the fire. In this state, (TX) Retaliation is a 3rd Felongy, slam his a$$............ok, ok, ok, I will cool off..anyone else like to take the soap box now. (My fellow LEO out there, is my arrest search and seizure info correct?)[heavy]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 5:08:53 PM EST
Around here, LEOs are so poorly compensated I wonder why any of them put their lives on the line for the community who places such little value on their labor. So it's no wonder why we have so many tort claims against our local LEOs for a community this size. We truly get what we pay for.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 5:32:30 PM EST
Originally Posted By pakrat: (My fellow LEO out there, is my arrest search and seizure info correct?)[heavy]
View Quote
I do not know if he had consent to search the vehicle or not, but checking the weapons is not an illegal search. Temporarily taking custody of legally possessed weapons during a stop (like a traffic stop or a reasonable suspicion detention)is not a seizure in the eyes of the law, and may well be a reasonable officer safety measure. Checking the serial numbers is likewise not a search, no more than checking a passenger of a vehicle you stopped for warrants is a search. This differs from the doctrine about manipulating property in a residence to yield a serial number. A vehicle falls under two separate sets of case law with regards to search and seizure: 1) Carroll (PC and a vehicle usually equates to exigent circumstances and the search warrant requirement does not apply); 2) Terry (frisk for weapons applies to vehicles as well, with reasonable suspicion, but usually applies only to areas immediately accessible to driver and passengers). I question going into to the trunk of a car without consent, absent any other facts, to check the weapons, as the driver most likely did not have immediate access to them, and therefore the officer could not reasonably articulate an officer safety issue about the weapons. This probably does not meet the Terry requirements, but may meet Carroll, if there were additional facts and circumstances supporting a search. But checking the weapons serial numbers to see if they were listed as stolen is not a search, is not prohibited, is not misconduct, and is an inherently reasonable and routine part of an encounter. A good parallel is when an officer sees a pile of car stereos in the backseat of a car. It is highly unusual to see one person in possession of a large number of car stereos. A reasonable person would believe that there is a good chance that the stereos are stolen. The officer must have legal reason to enter the vehicle to search (consent, PC for another offense, search incident to a custody arrest), but once he is inside, he is completely within his rights (and indeed would be derelict in his duties if he didn't) to check the stereos serial numbers to see if they are stolen. If the officer has good reason to believe that there are weapons in a vehicle, he can, under the Terry Doctrine, enter the vehicle and conduct a warrantless search for the weapons. Even if the weapons are legally possessed, he can still take temporary custody of them for safety reasons, though he is not required to, and common sense and good judgement often contraindicate that course of action. Once again, the damage to the weapon is a different matter. The officer and his department can and should be held accountable. They will only be held accountable if the person who was stopped contacts the Department in question and files a complaint. Did I mention that checking the weapons serial numbers is not a search?
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 6:05:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 6:24:19 PM EST
Post from natez -
Checking the serial numbers is likewise not a search, no more than checking a passenger of a vehicle you stopped for warrants is a search.
View Quote
Lord, now we're getting even deeper in this. Why are you checking out the passenger of a vehicle that you've presumably stopped for a TRAFFIC VIOLATION? How does the passenger's identity become an issue into which you need to make inquiry? Shouldn't you be saying something like 'Your papers, please' with a slight teutonic accent when you say this.[:D] We've long thought that a national identity card would be a great thing for law enforcement, but an ungodly nightmare for the civil rights of the citizenry. Is that now being changed? When did they change all the rules? If this is the law (and I'm a lawyer who does not do criminal law on a regular enough basis to even have a basis for an opinion) then it is wrong IMHO! The right of a citizen to be left alone is a sufficient reason that if I were a citizen passenger in a vehicle that was being stopped for a routine traffic offense and some LEO asked me for identification, I think we would all be going downtown! Write the ticket and be done with it! Is there an insufficient number of serious crimes being committed in the jurisdiction that would permit an LEO to leave his or her patrol area, just to see who the F*** was riding in the car? OK, so be it. If this is the way that LEOs want to interact with their natural allies, then they have made their choice, and we will be left to make ours! All the stolen gun recoveries in the world will not erase the simple injustice of a single stop and 'suspicionless' search of serial numbers on the side of a highway. I will have to think long and hard about this issue. Eric The(StillThinking)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 6:28:56 PM EST
I've never done an illegal drug in my life, but I could probably find any kind I wanted within a day in my hometown, and within 2 days here in buffalo. There are undoubtedly more drugs in buffalo than my hometown, but I don't know many people here, but I know a couple pot heads back home that could help me find stuff. If you wanted to get them you probably could. Might take a few days to find the right people but they're there.
Originally Posted By BigMac: Dang, Garand_Shooter, I have underestimated you completely. I believe I owe you an opology... I had no idea you had it like that. Any narcotic anytime! All this time I thought you had the squarest pants in here(not that thats a bad thing). I live in the liberal armpit of the world and it's not like that here... maybe you need a new neighborhood.
View Quote
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 7:28:01 PM EST
The quickest way to end the drive by shootings by the drug gangs is to give the drugs away free. The money save from the so called war on drugs could be used to set up free drug re hab clinics. We could pay the farmers in Columbia for their drugs and bankrupt the columbia drug cartel. Also putting the Mexican Drug Mafia out of business. The drug users could get free drugs by signing up with the local hospital and get what ever they want free. Get real people. Prohabition made Al Capone filthy rich. Drugs are going to cause us to lose out gun rights as the war on drugs gets worse and worse.The billionare drug barrons can buy and sell some Latin American countries already. Where do you think this will all end if we don't put a stop to it. Get it under control and then work to fix it. It is a medical problem and it will kill all of us some day. A flight attendant and a pilot on their way to the airport in Chicago were shot at in a bus while driving near a drug house in a public housing development. It could be you next. The war on drugs is a farce. Drugs can be had anywhere in the United States. If you don't believe that you are living in a bubble. Giving it away sounds drastic and unsafe but the guy who breaks into your house looking for drug money sounds more unsafe to me. Most of the crime today is drug related. We have prisons full of young people arrested for selling drugs or stealing to get money to buy drugs. We cold be giving them free College educations for the money we are wasting on the stupid prisons. I have yet to hear a better solution that could work. The war on drugs is a failure but the politicians are afraid to abandon it because the weenies will go nuts. There has to be a better way and free regulated drugs is the answer. Untill then expect more cops to be searching your cars and screwing with your guns. P.S. I do not use or sell drugs. Don't even drink beer or alcohol except at weddings.[moon]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 8:16:55 PM EST
Originally Posted By SGB: I would beg to disagree and ask for precedent allowing such action. A concealed weapons permit gives the civilian a legal right to posses the weapon.
View Quote
The law in most states, including mine, allows a peace officer to temporarily disarm a CHL holder during a stop. I have done it exactly once, with a licensee I later arrested for DWI. Most every other stop I have made of a legal concealed carrier has quickly turned into a chat about guns.
Being a passenger in a vehicle is no crime. A passenger in a vehicle is under no obligation to produce id or answer questions.
View Quote
The Supreme court has ruled that the passengers of a vehicle are de facto detained by the very nature of a traffic or suspicious vehicle stop. No person is obligated to identify themselves during a reasonable suspicion stop (another Supreme Court ruling) but a stop can and will go on for as long as necessary to conduct the investigation. Basically, if it is just a traffic stop, and a passenger refuses to identify themselves, barring any other reasonable suspicion or PC, they are free to go. If something else comes up, its another matter. We are not too far apart on this one. The officer, based on the skimpy facts I have seen posted, appears to have overstepped his bounds.
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 8:25:50 PM EST
I am not a "cop basher" but it does seem ironic that any officer on a routine stop would check firearms serial numbers and "run a check". Stolen property information including serial numbers is filed with most stolen property reports. All tools, appliances, computers, power tools, currency, etc. has a serial number on it that can be traced. How is it right to check the serial number of my firearm and not the serial numbers of the currency in my wallet, and the laptop in my briefcase, or the power tools in my tool box? Hell it would take all day to check you out if you were moving. Guns are no more likely to be stolen than laptops, or tools and we don't allow the police to parade around "checking" serial numbers on them. The only way our construction company ever recovers stolen property is when a private citizen calls us and tells us our engraved tools are for sale at XYZ Pawn. And Oklahoma City has an online stolen property tracking system that the Police use. [size=6]B[/size=6]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 8:30:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/4/2001 8:30:41 PM EST by SGB]
Link Posted: 8/4/2001 10:30:46 PM EST
mind you i'm for legalization, but the idea of "free" this and "free" that is kindof wrong. Make people pay the fair market value for the substances, as if it were any other generic pharmaceutical, ie your generic "heroin hydrochloride" would be sold by bayer and its competitor for 5 dollars for a day's worth. Then the tax payers would have no cause for complaint. No more property crimes by junkies looking for fix money, no more infringement of OUR civil liberties in the interest of fighting the war on drugs. IMHO the worst politicians are the bitches like Dianne Feinstein who fight for a ban on drugs, guns, more taxes, and less freedom. She's like a mustache short of being a Nazi. alphabeta121
Link Posted: 8/5/2001 4:53:40 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/5/2001 5:31:23 AM EST
Originally Posted By SGB: ... However I have never seen a statute or court ruling allowing an Officer to take possession of a CHL's weapon with out ... If you can locate a statute or ruling and post it I'd appreciate it. [i][b]"If you're not part of the Solution, you're part of the problem"[/i][/b] sgb
View Quote
From the Texas Government Code § 411.207. Authority of Peace Officer to Disarm A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder.
Link Posted: 8/5/2001 6:21:24 AM EST
If you want to create a society in which drugs are not available, you might want to consider this - Maximum security prisons in this country are pretty nicely controlled environments, every person entering the premises is searched and identified prior to entry. All packages are searched, all mail opened, all deliveries are identified and searched as well. Have you ever heard of any problems in inmates obtaining drugs while in prison? Drugs are widely available, all kinds, in pretty much any quantity desired. If we are unable to keep drugs out of the hands of these inmates, how in the heck are we gonna design a society that is as well policed as a prison, without that society actually becoming a prison? Thanks, but no thanks. If the so-called War on Drugs is going to continue to take such a toll on American freedom (and culture), then it will only be a matter of time before we are the inmates inside that national prison. Treat drug use as a medical issue. I would much rather step over an addict as he lies in the gutter, brain-addled by some Bayer Heroin which he obtained by prescription at his local free clinic, than to meet him, armed, in some darkened street or alleyway somewhere. Just who are we trying to save here, anyway? We built this country from scratch at a time when medicines were extremely limited, but unbelievably powerful. And unregulated. Anyone could go into a pharmacy, just as Meriwether Lewis did for his trip out West with William Clark, and purchase heroin, morphine, laudanum, belladonna, cocaine derivatives, or any other number of Schedule A narcotics. But wait, what about the 'chilluns.' What about them? What, we didn't have children around in those days, too? Eric The(I'mForPre-1903Food&DrugActAmerica!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 8/5/2001 9:22:43 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/5/2001 10:16:00 AM EST
Originally Posted By SGB: Next question [Under what authority does [u]simple possession[/u](no intoxication, no anger, not hostile, just every day "what did I do Officer") constitute a reasonable belief by the Officer? This is were I have the problem. LEO can't just take the weapon because he/she wants to.
View Quote
What is the reason for the contact? A normal traffic violation, where everything is congenial would generally not give rise to a need to disarm. I say generally-there are officers who probably disarm all persons they run across. This is probably unwarranted, but where they work and what types of people they regularly encounter have a large influence on their own outlook for officer safety. They may have different but valid perspective on this than we do. Any time there are factors above and beyond the "simple" stop, the officer could articulate disarming someone, and probably should disarm them for their safety as well as that of the person they are disarming (we would not want a misunderstanding to become a tragedy for anyone involved). Some examples would be: 1) Suspected DWI. 2) Involvement in a disturbance. 3) Conducting a PC,warrant or consent search. 3) A reasonable suspicion stop for suspected criminal activity, not related to a traffic offense or carrying a weapon. 5) If the person stopped is exhibiting other signs that they represent a safety threat (extremely upset, argumentative, physiological signs of deception or imminent flight, and so forth). Probably the best and least objectionable way to handle this would be if the weapon is not actually carried but in the vehicle, such as the glove box), which has been the case about 95% of time in my experience. Have the driver step out of the vehicle, and they are effectively disarmed, without offending anyone or any awkwardness involved. Remember, officers fear being assaulted, and with good reason. A fairly large percentage of officers killed get murdered on the "routine" traffic stop. I have had, on more than one occasion, a person on a simple (and usually extremely minor) traffic stop seriously escalate things by producing a weapon. Thankfully, luck and sound tactics got me through all of these situations without anyone getting hurt, or even placed in serious jeopardy, but it drives the point home to me that the next one could always go to crap really fast. Cops generally know that CHL carriers are the "good guys." Joe Dirtbag doesn't get a CHL, he just carries anyway, because Joe Dirtbag doesn't follow laws like the rest of us. Officers know that CHL holders have good reasons for carrying, just as most Peace Officers carry off-duty. We understand why they carry, and respect those reasons. People with CHLs are part of the solution and make our jobs easier; they have decide that they are not going to be victims, and are generally pretty law-abiding and helpful folks. For the record, the factors I mentioned about when to disarm are all pretty much common sense issues, and I would not hesitate to apply them to an off-duty police officer who was stopped for suspicious activity, as well.
Link Posted: 8/5/2001 10:56:12 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/6/2001 9:11:21 AM EST
SGB - I understand what you are saying, but you have to pick your fights. Why open you life up to destruction over a scratch on a combat weapon? Heck, I've had a buddy dump my rifle off a table at the range. It got scratched. He offered to pay to fix it. I told him not to worry about it, it's not a wall hanger. SGB wrote:
This dribble comming from some one who posts as fight4yourrights [b]"If you're not part of the Solution, you're part of the problem"[/b] sfb
View Quote
Link Posted: 8/6/2001 10:51:33 AM EST
My name is Joe Dirtbag...according to Natez. It is so sweet to know what officers actually think about me. Why is my name Joe Dirtbag-because I carry without a permit. Yep I am one of the millions of people out here who do not show up on your little screens...I must be a crook or maybe I am someone that one hundred and forty dollars is a lot of money to spend on a state that has a surplus of 54.84 billion dollars and can't seem to find someone literate enought tell them the meaning of "shall not be enfringed" And please do not start with any of the crap about be glad the state lets you carry...the state does not LET me do anything.
Link Posted: 8/6/2001 3:29:49 PM EST
Hiya Joe, I can't believe that natez inferred you are a low-life criminal just because you knowingly and willful violate the law, I mean really the nerve. I'm sure that $140.00 is a big deal to you, wait if you can't afford that where did you even get a gun?? Who is the "State" to tell you how to live your life. It's not like citizens have a say in electing legislators that pass laws or a Govenor that has veto power or Sheriff's to enforce the laws. Hey wait the power of the government is derived from the people. It sure is nice that you can decide which laws you will be bound by next you'll be telling us the state is put their nose where it doesn't belong when it passes laws to keep you from having sex with your 12 year old sister, the nerve of the people of this country to expect you, Joe Dirtbag, to live your life according to the rule of law. Let us know if the have the internet in jail Joe.
Link Posted: 8/6/2001 3:58:17 PM EST
I have filed complaints on cops on a couple of different occassions... both times I was clearly in the right and new the text of the law better than the cop. The first incident got the "offending" cop suspended for a couple of weeks without pay, and the second one damn near got me shot! With the second incident, I was ridiculing a rookie cop that was threatening me with arrest in my own house without a warrent, after being "invited" in by me (long story). Since he didn't have a warrent, I new perfectly well that he couldn't do anything and was basically my "house guest" and legally had to obey my wishes. He didn't see it that way at all, so I questioned his buddies about the letter of the law and they unanimously agreed with me, then the shift supervisor showed up and I started the questions all over again to belittle the rookie that was giving me a hard time and get him in trouble. Long story short, I walked a VERY fine line for several weeks in our county, and never drove over 54mph!
Link Posted: 8/6/2001 4:07:55 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/6/2001 4:58:32 PM EST
I've been to NC, guess I didn't spend enough time doing non-touristy stuff. If you said what right does the state have to regualate consensual private contact between adults I'd agree with you. What got me was the ATTITUDE - I break the law, in one of the gun friendliest states in the nation, because I chose to and how dare you judge me for it. I do believe in self defense, I guess I have never felt that I needed to break the law in order to defend myself. And I drive around the country 4,000 miles or so each year on vaction.
Link Posted: 8/6/2001 8:01:50 PM EST
Originally Posted By hound: I am someone that one hundred and forty dollars is a lot of money to spend ...
View Quote
They have a program for reduced fees for Concealed Handgun Licenses if you have demonstrable financial hardships. Here is some info from the DPS website: Q: How much will a concealed handgun license cost? A: For most Texans, the license will cost $140. But for senior citizens or indigent Texans, the cost is only $70. For active/honorably retired peace officers or active/retired judicial officers, the cost is $25. For elected felony prosecuting attorneys, fee is waived. Q: How poor do you have to be to be considered indigent? A: According to federal poverty guidelines, you may be considered indigent if you are single and you earn $7,470 per year or less. The maximum income for indigence classification is $25,390 for a family of eight. If you disagree with the law, contact your legislators. Your intentional decision to break the law is your own business, and you know the consequences.
Link Posted: 8/6/2001 9:21:30 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/7/2001 9:36:10 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/7/2001 10:58:32 AM EST by hound]
wow this is Joe dirtbag again. I may have to change my log-on name. Thanks Garand for covering my back. Let's see here..about the money....123.00 and 60.00 dollars a month in State mandated insurance--we were told by the state that rates would go down. 300.00 every two weeks in federal costs....we were told we would get a refund and then they took it out of next year. An increase of 50.00 a month in apartment rental to cover Water fees and increased property fees etc. Increased gas prices because of supply and demand...BULL*&%$ 3000.00 out of pocket to get the state to recognize that my wonderful wife was a two-timing #$%^&. Ya get the picture. I ain't mad but I ain't taking no more of this BIG BROTHER crap. And anyone who stands up for the MAN has a head full of junk. OH and one more point. Politics....haven't you figured out yet how irrelevant you are in that equation. Presenting for approval Bush and Bush lite, and if we decide you are too stupid to chose, we will do it for you. Not on the basis of any law or precedent but just because we know better than you......and the winner is Bush. Like I said I aint mad, but I get tired of hearing the same old crap. edited bekuz a lowlife lik ME kant spel
Top Top