User Panel
Posted: 7/1/2009 2:38:03 PM EDT
June 29, 2009
According to Cedric Glover, mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, his cops "have a power that [. . .] the President of these Unites States does not have": His cops can take away your rights. And would you like to guess which rights he has in mind? Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who got pulled over for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck –– and had his gun confiscated. While the officer who pulled him over says Baillio failed to use his turn signal, the only questions he had for Baillio concerned guns: Whether he had a gun, where the gun was, and if he was a member of the NRA. No requests for a driver's licence, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration –– and no discussion of a turn signal. Accordingly, Baillio told the officer the truth, which led the police officer to search his car without permission and confiscate his gun. However, not only does Louisiana law allow resident to drive with loaded weapons in their vehicles, but Mr. Baillio possessed a concealed carry license! What does such behavior demonstrate, other than transparent political profiling –– going so far as to use the infamous Department of Homeland Security report on "Americans of a rightwing persuasion" as a how-to guidebook, no less? Mr. Baillio made no secret of his political affiliations: An American flag centers a wide flourish of pro-freedom stickers and decals on his back windshield. In fact, when Baillio asked the officer if everyone he pulls over gets the same treatment, the officer said no and pointed to the back of his truck. Baillio phoned Mayor Glover to complain about this "suspension of rights" only to find that his city's morbidly obese "commander in chief" was elated at the story: According to Glover, Baillio got "served well, protected well, and even got a consideration that maybe [he] should not have gotten." Thankfully, Mr. Baillio recorded a good bit of that phone call. You can watch a video with the transcriptions here. I've reproduced a chunk of the call below: Baillio: (in the context of being asked about the presence of a gun) Well, I answered that question honestly, and he disarmed me. Glover: Which would be an appropriate and proper action, sir. The fact that you gave the correct answer –– it simply means that you did what it is you were supposed to have done, and that is to give that weapon to the police officer so he could appropriately place it in a place where it would not be a threat to you, to him, or to anyone in the general public. [. . .] Glover: My direction to you is that, had you chosen not to properly identify the fact that you had a weapon and directed that officer to where that weapon was located; had you been taken from the vehicle, and the officer, in the interest of his safety, chose to secure you in a safe position, and then looked, found, and determined that you did, in fact, have a weapon...then, sir, you would have faced additional, [inaudible], and more severe criminal sanctions. Baillio: So what you're saying is: I give up all my rights to keep and bear arms if I'm stopped by the police: Is that correct? Glover: Sir, you have no right, when you have been pulled over by a police officer for a potential criminal offense [which would be what?! - DB] to stand there with your weapon at your side in your hand [Baillio's weapon was nowhere near his side or his hand, and Glover knew that. –– DB] because of your second amendment rights, sir. That does not mean at that point your second amendment right has been taken away; it means at that particular point in time, it has been suspended. Will Grigg from ProLibertate, an excellent freedom blog, has this to say: According to Glover, a police officer may properly disarm any civilian at any time, and the civilian's duty is to surrender his gun –– willingly, readily, cheerfully, without cavil or question. From Glover's perspective, it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state's uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself. NAGR spoke with Mr. Baillio, and he told us that he's in the process of securing the official procedures and codes for firearm handling and private property confiscation for the Shreveport police department. So far, the city has been half-heartedly cooperating with him. "I felt sick," Baillio told NAGR. "My uncles didn't die for this country so I could surrender my rights like a wimp. I felt terrible. I was just thinking of all that my family has done for freedom in this nation –– including dying –– and here they are disarming me at a traffic stop." What to do? Read Luke's commentary here, and participate in the discussion by leaving a comment. Send this around. This kind of behavior cannot go unchecked. Call Mayor Glover's office to complain: (318) 673-5050. I'll leave you with one last consideration. As a licensed firearms instructor in charge of a hundred different students every month, I'm often asked if citizens should voluntarily inform police officers of the presence of a firearm during a routine traffic stop. While different states have different laws, my answer for Colorado citizens is an emphatic "No": Colorado law doesn't require you to volunteer that kind of information, and this case in Louisiana proves why, if at all possible, you should never invite trouble by doing so. In liberty, Dudley Brown Executive Director National Association for Gun Rights |
|
|
|
That's pretty vague.
LEO's usually have the right to temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop, for their own safety. That's not confiscation, because the weapon(s) get(s) returned at the end of the stop, barring an arrest or something. The mayor may be trying to point that out, and simply using inaccurate terminology. Given that the article offers no timeline of the events that actually transpired, nor their conclusion, my inclination is to place the "Nattional Association for Gun Rights" on the kook list. |
|
That cop would have been served with a civil rights violation lawsuit if it were me in that position. I'd own that arrogant bastard for that civil rights breach. Then I'd go after that pig mayor in the next suit.
Mike |
|
There has GOT to be more to the story other than, "Got stopped, they took my gun".
If not, this is an incredible violation of his rights. |
|
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it? Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges?
|
|
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it? Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges? Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order. |
|
One of the reasons I won't put any stickers on my car. If when things get really bad I want to put on my "poor old person" costume and fly under the radar as best I can. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it? Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges? Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order. How would it have been lawful without any actual reason behind it, though? Doesn't that essentially mean a cop can tell you to do whatever he wants, and if you refuse, he'll bust you for that failure to obey? Is there any legal reason a cop could demand and confiscate a weapon from a person under the circumstances presented in the original post? I'm honestly curious. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it? Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges? Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order. How would it have been lawful without any actual reason behind it, though? Doesn't that essentially mean a cop can tell you to do whatever he wants, and if you refuse, he'll bust you for that failure to obey? Is there any legal reason a cop could demand and confiscate a weapon from a person under the circumstances presented in the original post? I'm honestly curious. This has already been answered in this thread. Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop. |
|
Quoted:
That cop would have been served with a civil rights violation lawsuit if it were me in that position. I'd own that arrogant bastard for that civil rights breach. Then I'd go after that pig mayor in the next suit. Mike Too funny. Read the above posted link. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it? Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges? Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order. How would it have been lawful without any actual reason behind it, though? Doesn't that essentially mean a cop can tell you to do whatever he wants, and if you refuse, he'll bust you for that failure to obey? Is there any legal reason a cop could demand and confiscate a weapon from a person under the circumstances presented in the original post? I'm honestly curious. This has already been answered in this thread. Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop. Just because they want to, without anything at all being done by the person being stopped? I can understand that, even though it seems a bit screwy, but the weapon wasn't returned to him either, was it? Now, another question....what would have happened if the weapon was confiscated, like in this situation, the person who had the gun taken wasn't given any type of receipt or anything to "prove" the officer took the gun, and that same gun was used later on in a crime? Seems like a lot of people on here say, "Tell the cops no!" but in reality, you do that, and you're fucked. |
|
Quoted:
That cop would have been served with a civil rights violation lawsuit if it were me in that position. I'd own that arrogant bastard for that civil rights breach. Then I'd go after that pig mayor in the next suit. Mike Just curious, what civil rights violation would you pursue? Is there a precedent for this law suit you want to bring or is this the first time something like this has ever happened? |
|
Quoted:
but the weapon wasn't returned to him either, was it? Excellent question. I believe it was, although I'm not certain. I find it suspicious that the letter in the original post leaves out that little tidbit. This isn't to say that the police should be stopping people based on bumper stickers, of course. |
|
it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state's uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself.
What happened was absolutely wrong (pretext stop, etc.) and a heavy dose of comeuppance should be metered out but it does no good adding shit like this (even in a blog)and bunching all LEO's into this pigeon hole. |
|
From the other thread.
Here is the story on the gun according to the man stopped by police - Robert Baillio ––––––––––––––- "Here in Shreveport, LA, a little more than a week ago, to be exact, it was Friday, June 5th, about 9:45 in the evening. I was driving my pick-up from the Downtown Airport to my home. My wife had called and asked me to pick up an order she had called in to a local restaurant. I was about a block and a half from the restaurant when I noticed flashing lights behind me. I can honestly say that I didn’t have a clue as to why I was being stopped, but I instantly pulled over. Picture: Robert's Truck Right after I stopped, I got out of my truck and walked toward the tailgate. I kept my hands where he could see them and I stopped right there by the back bumper. Right there I was directly in his headlights, and I wanted to be sure he could see that I wasn’t carrying any kind of weapon, and I didn’t pose any type of threat to him. Well he got out of his vehicle and walked toward me. He stopped a little short of what I’d consider conversation distance, and he looked at me and said, “Do you have any firearms in your vehicle?” I didn’t really expect him to ask me that. And I didn’t know why he asked, but I answered and said “Yes” He asked where they were. And I really didn’t understand why he was asking me these questions. But I told him the truth, and I said “My pistol is between the drivers seat and the console. He instantly turned and walked to the drivers side door, opened it, and removed my pistol. I stayed at the back of the truck. He approached me, held my HK 45 Compact up, and dropped the magazine. He then asked if there was a shell in the chamber, and I said, “Yes sir, there is.” He ejected it onto the ground, locked the slide back, and walked back to his patrol unit and got in it. After a while, he got out of his car, and walked back toward me. Now let me say that since that night, in my efforts to try and find out what exactly happened to me there, I have listened to the audio from the mic on his shirt. Now, on the audio, I could barely hear, and I didn’t understand what he said his name was, but I heard Corporal something. I also heard, “I stopped you because you failed to use your signal when changing lanes.” (or something like that) But at the time, downtown with the noise of traffic passing, his engine running . . . I don’t recall hearing him say that. But it was on the audio, so that was my official notification as to why he pulled me over. Now he never said another word about anything involving traffic, or violations or anything related to my driving. As he got closer to me he started asking me what I consider to be odd, invasive, curious, personal, type questions that had nothing to do with my driving. His questions were more about me as a person, than me as a driver. He asked where I was coming from and where I was going. I told him I was coming from the Downtown Airport, going home, but I was stopping at the restaurant in the next block to pick up some food my wife ordered. Then he asked what I was doing at the airport, and I told him I had been working. I was really getting the feeling that something was hanging on my answers. It was a horrible feeling. I started to really not like this situation. Thinking back, I guess me saying I’d been at the airport flagged something in him, because he went back to his patrol unit and looked like he was talking on his radio. He was standing next to his unit with the door open, and he looked like he had one foot in the unit and the other foot on the ground. Well the restaurant I was going to closed at 10PM, and I didn’t what to have them get stuck with my order, so while he was standing at the door of his patrol unit, I hollered, “Hey Sarge, can I ask you a question?” He walked toward me and I said, “The restaurant where I’m picking up the food closes at 19PM. I’m not sure exactly what we’re doing here, but can we move down to the next block, and let me go in the restaurant and pick up my order?” It was at this time, well into the stop, that he asked me for my driver’s license, and I gave it to him. He told me to go ahead and drive to the restaurant, and he would follow me - so I did. When I got there I got out of my truck and pointed at the restaurant, then pointed at myself, and made a motion that sort of asked, can I go on in. He nodded yes. I went in, got my order came out, placed the order in the bed of my truck, and then stood by the tailgate where he could still have a good view of me. Then he started asking more of the personal questions. He said “How long have you lived at this address?” And I told him about 25 years. Then he asked me if I was a member of the NRA. I answered him truthfully, “Yes sir, I am.” Then he took out his pen, and held it right in front of my face, and he said watch the pen. I didn’t know why he wanted me to watch his pen, but I realized it must have been some part of a DWI test. I thought this was another odd thing, since if he had thought I was drunk, he would not have let me drive from where he stopped me to the restaurant. Then he walked back to his vehicle, reached inside, and walked toward me carrying my pistol in one hand and the magazine in the other. He said, “You have good taste in guns, and he handed me the pistol and magazine.” I asked if he had picked up the bullet he extracted from the gun, and he said yes and had put it back in the magazine. Then he turned to walk away. He didn’t say, “you’re free to go” or anything. He just turned to walk away from me. So I said, “Wait a minute. What’s all this about?” He sort of shook his head, as if to say nothing. So I said, “I’m familiar with the Department of Homeland Security Threat Assessment Memo, and I think you stopped me because of my Marine Corps, Church, and Second Amendment stickers!” He said, “You’re familiar with what?” I said again, “The Department of Homeland Security Threat Assessment Memo.” He said “I don’t know anything about that.” I told him I have always supported the police and I appreciate their work, but this type of thing I don’t appreciate. Then he walked away I called the mayor of Shreveport, on Monday June 8th. Late in the day he finally called me back. I told him that I was very uncomfortable standing on a busy street without my hand gun, and I did not believe the officer had any reason, or right to remove it from my vehicle. He told me that during a traffic stop "My rights were suspended." At first I couldn't believe he said that. Then, I thought “no one is going to believe me when I tell them he said that” so I turned on my digital recorder and recorded the rest of our conversation. He said my right to drive off after a policeman stops me was suspended. He was comparing my Constitutional Rights with driving off after a policeman stops you - something that is against the law. He didn't even know what RIGHTS are." Source: http://www.conservativedrink.com/media/Baillio-WhatHappened.asp |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it? Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges? Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order. How would it have been lawful without any actual reason behind it, though? Doesn't that essentially mean a cop can tell you to do whatever he wants, and if you refuse, he'll bust you for that failure to obey? Is there any legal reason a cop could demand and confiscate a weapon from a person under the circumstances presented in the original post? I'm honestly curious. This has already been answered in this thread. Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop. You keep saying that, but what is that based on? Please don't cop out and say there are numerous court cases, give us one. Also, in light of using the term "Officer Safety" doesn't there have to be some demonstrable safety issue for that to be a valid reason? Like in Terry v. Ohio? I'm all for Officer Safety, but cringe when I hear some cowboy imply "We don't need no Stinkin' Probable Cause". If all these cops are afraid of the public having guns, maybe they should see if the Fire Dept. is hiring. |
|
Quoted:
That cop would have been served with a civil rights violation lawsuit if it were me in that position. I'd own that arrogant bastard for that civil rights breach. Then I'd go after that pig mayor in the next suit. Mike Nothing is stopping you there sparky..go ahead and do it. |
|
Quoted:
it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state's uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself.
What happened was absolutely wrong (pretext stop, etc.) and a heavy dose of comeuppance should be metered out but it does no good adding shit like this (even in a blog)and bunching all LEO's into this pigeon hole. This is GD that happens here EVERY day and Five times as much on Fridays. According to the Douche-nozzles around here EVERY cop is just itching for the confiscation order..Oh and we all drive drunk, smoke pot and beat our wives too. Obviously i've been doing it wrong for the past 22 years, so i'll have to adjust my way of working now to meet the requirements of GD. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
This has already been answered in this thread. Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop. You keep saying that, but what is that based on? Please don't cop out and say there are numerous court cases, give us one. Also, in light of using the term "Officer Safety" doesn't there have to be some demonstrable safety issue for that to be a valid reason? Like in Terry v. Ohio? I'm all for Officer Safety, but cringe when I hear some cowboy imply "We don't need no Stinkin' Probable Cause". If all these cops are afraid of the public having guns, maybe they should see if the Fire Dept. is hiring. When I keep saying things, it's usually because they're true. In the case of Louisiana, the relevant statute is LRS 40:1379.3:I (2) (2) A permittee armed with a handgun in accordance with this Section shall notify any police officer who approaches the permittee in an official manner or with an identified official purpose that he has a weapon on his person, submit to a pat down, and allow the officer to temporarily disarm him. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is carrying a concealed handgun and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is under the influence of either alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance, the law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the handgun and request submission of the individual to a department certified chemical test for determination of the chemical status of the individual. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is behaving in a criminally negligent manner as defined under the provisions of this Section, or is negligent in the carrying of a concealed handgun as provided for in R.S. 40:1382, the law enforcement officer may seize the handgun, until adjudication by a judge, if the individual is issued a summons or arrested under the provisions of R.S. 40:1382. Failure by the permittee to comply with the provisions of this Paragraph shall result in a six-month automatic suspension of the permit.
http://www.lsp.org/pdf/chRuleBook08.pdf |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it? Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges? Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order. How would it have been lawful without any actual reason behind it, though? Doesn't that essentially mean a cop can tell you to do whatever he wants, and if you refuse, he'll bust you for that failure to obey? Is there any legal reason a cop could demand and confiscate a weapon from a person under the circumstances presented in the original post? I'm honestly curious. This has already been answered in this thread. Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop. You keep saying that, but what is that based on? Please don't cop out and say there are numerous court cases, give us one. Also, in light of using the term "Officer Safety" doesn't there have to be some demonstrable safety issue for that to be a valid reason? Like in Terry v. Ohio? I'm all for Officer Safety, but cringe when I hear some cowboy imply "We don't need no Stinkin' Probable Cause". If all these cops are afraid of the public having guns, maybe they should see if the Fire Dept. is hiring. Read the other thread and your questions will be answered. I've ran into two CCW holders since going active again in LE. One I never looked at the weapon, the other I held if for the duration of the stop. The only thing the two had in common was a traffic stop. |
|
Quoted:
There has GOT to be more to the story other than, "Got stopped, they took my gun". If not, this is an incredible violation of his rights. You need to go back to the slightly more coherent discussion when it was first posted. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it? Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges? Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order. How would it have been lawful without any actual reason behind it, though? Doesn't that essentially mean a cop can tell you to do whatever he wants, and if you refuse, he'll bust you for that failure to obey? Is there any legal reason a cop could demand and confiscate a weapon from a person under the circumstances presented in the original post? I'm honestly curious. This has already been answered in this thread. Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop. You keep saying that, but what is that based on? Please don't cop out and say there are numerous court cases, give us one. Also, in light of using the term "Officer Safety" doesn't there have to be some demonstrable safety issue for that to be a valid reason? Like in Terry v. Ohio? I'm all for Officer Safety, but cringe when I hear some cowboy imply "We don't need no Stinkin' Probable Cause". If all these cops are afraid of the public having guns, maybe they should see if the Fire Dept. is hiring. Cops are not afraid of the public having guns, just the criminals. Until they contact you, they don't know who you are. Caution is a good thing. Imagine contacting a lot of people everyday, under circumstances where they are not happy to see you. Criminals think the cops know they just committed that bank robbery when, in fact, they were just pulling them over for a broken tail light. Regardless of what the GD thinks, cops are cautious for a reason. Now, I'llbe right back with that Court decision, if I can find it... |
|
JBlitzen
That doesn't seem to apply from the details given in the report. He had the gun concealed in the vehicle, not on his person, and he wasn't drinking. Got anything that does give the officer a legal right to go fishing? |
|
Quoted:
JBlitzen That doesn't seem to apply from the details given in the report. He had the gun concealed in the vehicle, not on his person, and he wasn't drinking. Got anything that does give the officer a legal right to go fishing? Wow. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This has already been answered in this thread. Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop. You keep saying that, but what is that based on? Please don't cop out and say there are numerous court cases, give us one. Also, in light of using the term "Officer Safety" doesn't there have to be some demonstrable safety issue for that to be a valid reason? Like in Terry v. Ohio? I'm all for Officer Safety, but cringe when I hear some cowboy imply "We don't need no Stinkin' Probable Cause". If all these cops are afraid of the public having guns, maybe they should see if the Fire Dept. is hiring. When I keep saying things, it's usually because they're true. In the case of Louisiana, the relevant statute is LRS 40:1379.3:I (2) (2) A permittee armed with a handgun in accordance with this Section shall notify any police officer who approaches the permittee in an official manner or with an identified official purpose that he has a weapon on his person, submit to a pat down, and allow the officer to temporarily disarm him. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is carrying a concealed handgun and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is under the influence of either alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance, the law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the handgun and request submission of the individual to a department certified chemical test for determination of the chemical status of the individual. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is behaving in a criminally negligent manner as defined under the provisions of this Section, or is negligent in the carrying of a concealed handgun as provided for in R.S. 40:1382, the law enforcement officer may seize the handgun, until adjudication by a judge, if the individual is issued a summons or arrested under the provisions of R.S. 40:1382. Failure by the permittee to comply with the provisions of this Paragraph shall result in a six-month automatic suspension of the permit.
http://www.lsp.org/pdf/chRuleBook08.pdf The only covers if they believe someone is drunk or under the influence, right? In this case, not using a blinker hardly seems to indicate someone under the influence, nor "criminally negligent behavior". : I'm not against an officer taking someone's weapon if they honestly believe the person could be a threat, but it almost seems to be a carte blanche for them. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it? Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges? Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order. How would it have been lawful without any actual reason behind it, though? Doesn't that essentially mean a cop can tell you to do whatever he wants, and if you refuse, he'll bust you for that failure to obey? Is there any legal reason a cop could demand and confiscate a weapon from a person under the circumstances presented in the original post? I'm honestly curious. This has already been answered in this thread. Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop. You keep saying that, but what is that based on? Please don't cop out and say there are numerous court cases, give us one. Also, in light of using the term "Officer Safety" doesn't there have to be some demonstrable safety issue for that to be a valid reason? Like in Terry v. Ohio? I'm all for Officer Safety, but cringe when I hear some cowboy imply "We don't need no Stinkin' Probable Cause". If all these cops are afraid of the public having guns, maybe they should see if the Fire Dept. is hiring. Cops are not afraid of the public having guns, just the criminals. Until they contact you, they don't know who you are. Caution is a good thing. Imagine contacting a lot of people everyday, under circumstances where they are not happy to see you. Criminals think the cops know they just committed that bank robbery when, in fact, they were just pulling them over for a broken tail light. Regardless of what the GD thinks, cops are cautious for a reason. Now, I'llbe right back with that Court decision, if I can find it... The argument could be made that if someone has a weapon and is considering using it on the officer, it's very unlikely they'll either affirm they have a weapon, or peaceably hand it over if asked to. Sorta like the "making guns illegal means criminals won't have them" debate. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This has already been answered in this thread. Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop. You keep saying that, but what is that based on? Please don't cop out and say there are numerous court cases, give us one. Also, in light of using the term "Officer Safety" doesn't there have to be some demonstrable safety issue for that to be a valid reason? Like in Terry v. Ohio? I'm all for Officer Safety, but cringe when I hear some cowboy imply "We don't need no Stinkin' Probable Cause". If all these cops are afraid of the public having guns, maybe they should see if the Fire Dept. is hiring. When I keep saying things, it's usually because they're true. In the case of Louisiana, the relevant statute is LRS 40:1379.3:I (2) (2) A permittee armed with a handgun in accordance with this Section shall notify any police officer who approaches the permittee in an official manner or with an identified official purpose that he has a weapon on his person, submit to a pat down, and allow the officer to temporarily disarm him. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is carrying a concealed handgun and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is under the influence of either alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance, the law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the handgun and request submission of the individual to a department certified chemical test for determination of the chemical status of the individual. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is behaving in a criminally negligent manner as defined under the provisions of this Section, or is negligent in the carrying of a concealed handgun as provided for in R.S. 40:1382, the law enforcement officer may seize the handgun, until adjudication by a judge, if the individual is issued a summons or arrested under the provisions of R.S. 40:1382. Failure by the permittee to comply with the provisions of this Paragraph shall result in a six-month automatic suspension of the permit.
http://www.lsp.org/pdf/chRuleBook08.pdf The only covers if they believe someone is drunk or under the influence, right? In this case, not using a blinker hardly seems to indicate someone under the influence, nor "criminally negligent behavior". : I'm not against an officer taking someone's weapon if they honestly believe the person could be a threat, but it almost seems to be a carte blanche for them. Reread it. The officer can take any ccw weapon. This also follows SCOTUS decisions. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This has already been answered in this thread. Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop. You keep saying that, but what is that based on? Please don't cop out and say there are numerous court cases, give us one. Also, in light of using the term "Officer Safety" doesn't there have to be some demonstrable safety issue for that to be a valid reason? Like in Terry v. Ohio? I'm all for Officer Safety, but cringe when I hear some cowboy imply "We don't need no Stinkin' Probable Cause". If all these cops are afraid of the public having guns, maybe they should see if the Fire Dept. is hiring. When I keep saying things, it's usually because they're true. In the case of Louisiana, the relevant statute is LRS 40:1379.3:I (2) (2) A permittee armed with a handgun in accordance with this Section shall notify any police officer who approaches the permittee in an official manner or with an identified official purpose that he has a weapon on his person, submit to a pat down, and allow the officer to temporarily disarm him. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is carrying a concealed handgun and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is under the influence of either alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance, the law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the handgun and request submission of the individual to a department certified chemical test for determination of the chemical status of the individual. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is behaving in a criminally negligent manner as defined under the provisions of this Section, or is negligent in the carrying of a concealed handgun as provided for in R.S. 40:1382, the law enforcement officer may seize the handgun, until adjudication by a judge, if the individual is issued a summons or arrested under the provisions of R.S. 40:1382. Failure by the permittee to comply with the provisions of this Paragraph shall result in a six-month automatic suspension of the permit.
http://www.lsp.org/pdf/chRuleBook08.pdf The only covers if they believe someone is drunk or under the influence, right? In this case, not using a blinker hardly seems to indicate someone under the influence, nor "criminally negligent behavior". : I'm not against an officer taking someone's weapon if they honestly believe the person could be a threat, but it almost seems to be a carte blanche for them. Reread it. The officer can take any ccw weapon. This also follows SCOTUS decisions. I did, and the bolded part seems to be the overall heading, with the following text outlining when an officer can take a pistol, where it only states that can be done during suspicion of being under the influence, engaging in criminally negligent behavior, or illegally carrying a concealed weapon. If an officer can take a concealed weapon for whatever reason whatsoever during a stop, why outline the under the influence and other reasons? Like I said, not against it, just curious as to how overarching it is. |
|
I agree with DemonicLemming that some LEO's express that it is only for their safety they "Secure" a legal weapon.
The problem seems that they never seem to be able to articulate why they do not feel safe. In most cases there does not seem to be a law or legal precedent to support this temporary confiscation. Edited to add: The law quoted is very specific in stating a weapon "On His Person". That is not the same as in a vehicle, now is it? Please post the SCOTUS decisiion that you think covers this issue. |
|
Quoted:
I did, and the bolded part seems to be the overall heading, with the following text outlining when an officer can take a pistol, where it only states that can be done during suspicion of being under the influence, engaging in criminally negligent behavior, or illegally carrying a concealed weapon. If an officer can take a concealed weapon for whatever reason whatsoever during a stop, why outline the under the influence and other reasons? Like I said, not against it, just curious as to how overarching it is. No. One deals straight up with a stop. The other deals a stop and being under the influence. Ie. being on foot while armed and drunk. |
|
Quoted:
I agree with DemonicLemming that some LEO's express that it is only for their safety they "Secure" a legal weapon. The problem seems that they never seem to be able to articulate why they do not feel safe. In most cases there does not seem to be a law or legal precedent to support this temporary confiscation. Wrong again. An officer must be able to articulate why he felt the need to take the weapon. He does not need PC only RS. Read the other thread and all your questions will be answered. You are wrong again on the law and court decisions allowing an officer to hold a weapon during a traffic stop. I will say LA law seems to be more broad than established SCOTUS rulings. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it? Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges? Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order. How would it have been lawful without any actual reason behind it, though? Doesn't that essentially mean a cop can tell you to do whatever he wants, and if you refuse, he'll bust you for that failure to obey? Is there any legal reason a cop could demand and confiscate a weapon from a person under the circumstances presented in the original post? I'm honestly curious. This has already been answered in this thread. Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop. You keep saying that, but what is that based on? Please don't cop out and say there are numerous court cases, give us one. Also, in light of using the term "Officer Safety" doesn't there have to be some demonstrable safety issue for that to be a valid reason? Like in Terry v. Ohio? I'm all for Officer Safety, but cringe when I hear some cowboy imply "We don't need no Stinkin' Probable Cause". If all these cops are afraid of the public having guns, maybe they should see if the Fire Dept. is hiring. Cops are not afraid of the public having guns, just the criminals. Until they contact you, they don't know who you are. Caution is a good thing. Imagine contacting a lot of people everyday, under circumstances where they are not happy to see you. Criminals think the cops know they just committed that bank robbery when, in fact, they were just pulling them over for a broken tail light. Regardless of what the GD thinks, cops are cautious for a reason. Now, I'llbe right back with that Court decision, if I can find it... The argument could be made that if someone has a weapon and is considering using it on the officer, it's very unlikely they'll either affirm they have a weapon, or peaceably hand it over if asked to. Sorta like the "making guns illegal means criminals won't have them" debate. I'm not saying they will hand it over, I'm saying that cops are cautious for a reason. I have found numerous parolees, probationers, and other criminals in possession of handguns they forgot they had or weren't inclined to use at the moment. Again, until the officer contacts you he has no idea of who you are. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did, and the bolded part seems to be the overall heading, with the following text outlining when an officer can take a pistol, where it only states that can be done during suspicion of being under the influence, engaging in criminally negligent behavior, or illegally carrying a concealed weapon. If an officer can take a concealed weapon for whatever reason whatsoever during a stop, why outline the under the influence and other reasons? Like I said, not against it, just curious as to how overarching it is. No. One deals straight up with a stop. The other deals a stop and being under the influence. Ie. being on foot while armed and drunk. Gotcha. |
|
Quoted:
I agree with DemonicLemming that some LEO's express that it is only for their safety they "Secure" a legal weapon. The problem seems that they never seem to be able to articulate why they do not feel safe. In most cases there does not seem to be a law or legal precedent to support this temporary confiscation. Edited to add: The law quoted is very specific in stating a weapon "On His Person". That is not the same as in a vehicle, now is it? Please post the SCOTUS decisiion that you think covers this issue. Go read the other thread or use google. Or go to the local community college and take some CJ classes. |
|
So Bama, where in this situation did the officer articulate his reason to fear for his safety? I must have missed that part.
Also, since you seem well versed on SCOTUS decisions regarding CCW vs LEO, please feel free to quote the most appropriate case that backs you claims. I thought I'd read most of them, but I may have missed a few. |
|
Quoted:
The argument could be made that if someone has a weapon and is considering using it on the officer, it's very unlikely they'll either affirm they have a weapon, or peaceably hand it over if asked to. Sorta like the "making guns illegal means criminals won't have them" debate. You would lose that argument the same as those who say a person would not charge a person openly displaying a weapon. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This has already been answered in this thread. Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop. You keep saying that, but what is that based on? Please don't cop out and say there are numerous court cases, give us one. Also, in light of using the term "Officer Safety" doesn't there have to be some demonstrable safety issue for that to be a valid reason? Like in Terry v. Ohio? I'm all for Officer Safety, but cringe when I hear some cowboy imply "We don't need no Stinkin' Probable Cause". If all these cops are afraid of the public having guns, maybe they should see if the Fire Dept. is hiring. When I keep saying things, it's usually because they're true. In the case of Louisiana, the relevant statute is LRS 40:1379.3:I (2) (2) A permittee armed with a handgun in accordance with this Section shall notify any police officer who approaches the permittee in an official manner or with an identified official purpose that he has a weapon on his person, submit to a pat down, and allow the officer to temporarily disarm him. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is carrying a concealed handgun and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is under the influence of either alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance, the law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the handgun and request submission of the individual to a department certified chemical test for determination of the chemical status of the individual. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is behaving in a criminally negligent manner as defined under the provisions of this Section, or is negligent in the carrying of a concealed handgun as provided for in R.S. 40:1382, the law enforcement officer may seize the handgun, until adjudication by a judge, if the individual is issued a summons or arrested under the provisions of R.S. 40:1382. Failure by the permittee to comply with the provisions of this Paragraph shall result in a six-month automatic suspension of the permit.
http://www.lsp.org/pdf/chRuleBook08.pdf The only covers if they believe someone is drunk or under the influence, right? In this case, not using a blinker hardly seems to indicate someone under the influence, nor "criminally negligent behavior". : I'm not against an officer taking someone's weapon if they honestly believe the person could be a threat, but it almost seems to be a carte blanche for them. Here is the proper section: LOUISIANA CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT LAWS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES §1313. Code of Conduct of Permittees A. General Provisions 1. All permittees shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations. 2. Any violation of R.S. 40:1379.3, 40:1381, or 40:1382 shall also constitute a violation of these rules. 3. Each permittee shall meet and maintain all qualifications necessary to possess a concealed handgun permit. B. Duties and Responsibilities of the Permittee 1. A permittee shall retain and carry on his person his concealed handgun permit at all times he is actually carrying and concealing any handgun authorized by the permit and shall immediately produce his permit upon the request of any law enforcement officer. Anyone who violates this provision shall be fined not more than $100. 2. A permittee armed with a handgun shall notify any police officer who approaches the permittee in an official manner or with an identified official purpose that he has a handgun on his person, submit to a pat down, and allow the officer to temporarily disarm him. Failure to comply with this provision shall result in a six-month automatic suspension of the permit. 3. A permittee is prohibited from carrying a concealed handgun on his person while |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did, and the bolded part seems to be the overall heading, with the following text outlining when an officer can take a pistol, where it only states that can be done during suspicion of being under the influence, engaging in criminally negligent behavior, or illegally carrying a concealed weapon. If an officer can take a concealed weapon for whatever reason whatsoever during a stop, why outline the under the influence and other reasons? Like I said, not against it, just curious as to how overarching it is. No. One deals straight up with a stop. The other deals a stop and being under the influence. Ie. being on foot while armed and drunk. Funny how differently LEOs interpret the law as opposed to civilians. We read laws in a way that safeguards our rights, while LEOs read it in way to take away our rights. |
|
Bama, you seem to have some knowledge of LA law, what is the legality of carrying a firearm concealed in a vehicle NOT on your person as in the subject of this thread? Did the driver even need to have a CCW permit, or is it not against the law with all the usual, intoxicated, ex felon, restraining order, etc. provisions?
Since it was not "On His Person" as required by the much quoted law, is there a legal requirement to disclose, or is my favorite, "There is nothing illegal in my car, I do not consent to a search" statement applicable and legal in LA under these circumstances? |
|
Here are some basics that are already established. Take them to you lawyer if you want to verify them.
What the Police Can Do During a Stop Once police officers have lawfully stopped a vehicle, either because of probable cause for a traffic infraction or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, they can: 1. Order the occupants out of the vehicle 2. Ask to see the driver's license, registration, and other relevant information, such as an insurance card ("proof of insurance") 3. Conduct a limited search to gain access to the vehicle identification number (''VIN'') 4. Conduct a dog sniff (''canine sniff''), so long as the sniff does not extend the length of the stop 5. Take actions reasonably related to the original reason for stopping the vehicle or related to suspicions that develop during the stop 6. Frisk for weapons if they have or develop a reasonable suspicion that the occupants may be armed or dangerous, and 7. Search the vehicle if the stop provides probable cause for the officers to believe it contains illegal or stolen goods or evidence of a crime Here is Knowles -vs- Iowa (SCOTUS) in a nutshell: Car search based on traffic ticket A police officer cannot search a driver or his car without consent based solely on a routine traffic infraction where the officer has no reason to believe his safety is in jeopardy, the U.S. Supreme Court said. The court in 1973 said police can search motorists after arresting them in order to disarm suspects and preserve evidence, but the justices refused to extend that authority to include stops for speeding and other routine violations. The court ruled in favor of an Iowa man who was pulled over for speeding, but then sentenced to jail after a search of his vehicle found marijuana under the driver's seat. The State of Iowa was supported by a national police organization in defending the search. Writing for the unanimous court, Chief Justice Rehnquist rejected prosecutors' arguments in favor of the search, saying, "Once (the driver) was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all the evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained. No further evidence of excessive speed was going to be found either on the person of the offender or in the passenger compartment of the car." The court acknowledged the bright-line rule it established in 1973 for searches after an arrest, but said, "Here we are asked to extend that 'bright line rule' to a situation where the concern for officer safety is not present to the same extent and the concern for destruction or loss of property is not present at all. We decline to do so." Arizona -vs- Gant (SCOTUS): After Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in the back of a patrol car, police officers searched his car and discovered cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat. Because Gant could not have accessed his car to retrieve weapons or evidence at the time of the search, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment ’s warrant requirement, as defined in Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969) , and applied to vehicle searches in New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981) , did not justify the search in this case. Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies. The Arizona Supreme Court correctly held that this case involved an unreasonable search. Accordingly, the judgment of the State Supreme Court is affirmed. OHIO v. ROBINETTE certiorari to the supreme court of ohio No. 95-891. Argued October 8, 1996 –– Decided November 18, 1996 After an Ohio deputy sheriff stopped respondent Robinette for speeding, gave him a verbal warning, and returned his driver's license, the deputy asked whether he was carrying illegal contraband, weapons, or drugs in his car. Robinette answered "no" and consented to a search of the car, which revealed a small amount of marijuana and a pill. He was arrested and later charged with knowing possession of a controlled substance when the pill turned out to be methylenedioxy methamphetamine. Following denial of his pretrial suppression motion, he was found guilty, but the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the search resulted from an unlawful detention. The State Supreme Court affirmed, establishing as a bright line prerequisite for consensual interrogation under these circumstances the requirement that an officer clearly state when a citizen validly detained for a traffic offense is "legally free to go." REVERSED BY SCOTUS: The Fourth Amendment does not require that a lawfully seized defendant be advised that he is "free to go" before his consent to search will be recognized as voluntary. The Amendment's touchstone is reasonableness, which is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances. In applying this test, the Court has consistently eschewed bright line rules, instead emphasizing the fact specific nature of the reasonableness inquiry. Indeed, in rejecting a per se rule very similar to one adopted below, this Court has held that the voluntariness of a consent to search is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 248-249. The Ohio Supreme Court erred in holding otherwise. It would be unrealistic to require the police to always inform detainees that they are free to go before a consent to search may be deemed voluntary. Cf. id., at 231. Pp. 5-6. 73 Ohio St. 3d 65, 653 N.E. 2d 695, reversed. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did, and the bolded part seems to be the overall heading, with the following text outlining when an officer can take a pistol, where it only states that can be done during suspicion of being under the influence, engaging in criminally negligent behavior, or illegally carrying a concealed weapon. If an officer can take a concealed weapon for whatever reason whatsoever during a stop, why outline the under the influence and other reasons? Like I said, not against it, just curious as to how overarching it is. No. One deals straight up with a stop. The other deals a stop and being under the influence. Ie. being on foot while armed and drunk. Funny how differently LEOs interpret the law as opposed to civilians. We read laws in a way that safeguards our rights, while LEOs read it in way to take away our rights. I read it as the law of that particular state. Personally I think CCW permits are against the 2nd Amendment are therefore unconstitutional. YMMV |
|
Quoted:
Bama, you seem to have some knowledge of LA law, what is the legality of carrying a firearm concealed in a vehicle NOT on your person as in the subject of this thread? Did the driver even need to have a CCW permit, or is it not against the law with all the usual, intoxicated, ex felon, restraining order, etc. provisions? Since it was not "On His Person" as required by the much quoted law, is there a legal requirement to disclose, or is my favorite, "There is nothing illegal in my car, I do not consent to a search" statement applicable and legal in LA under these circumstances? I'm more familiar with SCOTUS rulings on officers securing a weapon during a traffic stop than LA state law. Other than discussing in this thread and the other 6 page thread linked in this thread. If you READ the other thread you will find many of your questions answered. To include the person being stopped should not have exited the vehicle, this sends the short hairs on an LEO up. The stop was legal and the securing of the firearm was legal. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The argument could be made that if someone has a weapon and is considering using it on the officer, it's very unlikely they'll either affirm they have a weapon, or peaceably hand it over if asked to. Sorta like the "making guns illegal means criminals won't have them" debate. You would lose that argument the same as those who say a person would not charge a person openly displaying a weapon. So a criminal with a gun and the intent to shoot an officer won't shoot said officer if he's asked to hand the gun over? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did, and the bolded part seems to be the overall heading, with the following text outlining when an officer can take a pistol, where it only states that can be done during suspicion of being under the influence, engaging in criminally negligent behavior, or illegally carrying a concealed weapon. If an officer can take a concealed weapon for whatever reason whatsoever during a stop, why outline the under the influence and other reasons? Like I said, not against it, just curious as to how overarching it is. No. One deals straight up with a stop. The other deals a stop and being under the influence. Ie. being on foot while armed and drunk. Funny how differently LEOs interpret the law as opposed to civilians. We read laws in a way that safeguards our rights, while LEOs read it in way to take away our rights. I read it as the law of that particular state. Personally I think CCW permits are against the 2nd Amendment are therefore unconstitutional. YMMV So what your saying is that you uphold a law that you believe to be in direct violation of our rights. This is why I'll never understand LEOs. You enforce something you feel is wrong, just seems a little weird to me is all. The run-ins I've had with being pulled over at telling the officer that I have a CW have been 50% good. Half of the time they believe me having a weapon on my person gives them PC to search my vehicle. I even ask them when they are doing the search if they have PC and they say yes...and I know they are lying. Unless having a weapon within my rights is some sort of violation and that's their PC. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it? Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges? Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order. How would it have been lawful without any actual reason behind it, though? Doesn't that essentially mean a cop can tell you to do whatever he wants, and if you refuse, he'll bust you for that failure to obey? Is there any legal reason a cop could demand and confiscate a weapon from a person under the circumstances presented in the original post? I'm honestly curious. This has already been answered in this thread. Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop. And why is it that the civilian being stopped can't disarm the cop in order to ensure his own safety? |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.