| Author | Post |
|---|
DESERT ATILLA
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 18th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 02:33 am |
|
inNV wrote: Prove he didn't have a REASONABLE suspicion.
Hey, next time you get pulled over, or a cop approaches you for a lawful purpose, and he asks to secure your firearm, tell him no and see what happens.
Scenario: I'm in a grocery store with a basket full of food. A LEO is also in the store and notices that I am OCng. Is it lawful for him to approach me? Is it lawful to seize my firearm "for his safety" while he talks to me? The Federal judge in New Mexico would be the one to say no.
Read:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
|
timf343
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 04:03 am |
|
Don't Tread-
I assume you mean you blew a 0.008, and the officer had threatened you about 0.01 or 0.02. 0.08 would have been an actual DUI, and 0.1 you'd have been in violation of NRS 202.257. 0.2 and you'd have been falling down drunk most likely.
Tim
|
DON`T TREAD ON ME
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 02:55 pm |
|
Tim ,
you are correct. .008
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23rd, 2009 06:21 am |
|
DESERT ATILLA wrote:
inNV wrote: Prove he didn't have a REASONABLE suspicion.
Hey, next time you get pulled over, or a cop approaches you for a lawful purpose, and he asks to secure your firearm, tell him no and see what happens.
Scenario: I'm in a grocery store with a basket full of food. A LEO is also in the store and notices that I am OCng. Is it lawful for him to approach me? Is it lawful to seize my firearm "for his safety" while he talks to me? The Federal judge in New Mexico would be the one to say no.
Read:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
Are people coming out of the peanut gallery now with idiotic, having nothing to do with the case in point scenarios now?
Yes, it is lawful for him to approach you, anyone can approach. But by your question, I assume you mean he approaches you because of your firearm. Well, it's not illegal for him to approach you, but he couldn't take your weapon unless he approached you for another reason. For instance, you match a description of a man who just committed a crime, or management informed him you were shoplifting. Unless he has some reason to approach you, then no he can't secure your firearm, but he can approach you all he wants.
I don't even know why I answered this question as it is completely irrelevant. A person who commits two traffic infractions broke the law, and an officer has every right to secure his weapon.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23rd, 2009 01:08 pm |
|
inNV wrote: DESERT ATILLA wrote:
inNV wrote: Prove he didn't have a REASONABLE suspicion.
Hey, next time you get pulled over, or a cop approaches you for a lawful purpose, and he asks to secure your firearm, tell him no and see what happens.
Scenario: I'm in a grocery store with a basket full of food. A LEO is also in the store and notices that I am OCng. Is it lawful for him to approach me? Is it lawful to seize my firearm "for his safety" while he talks to me? The Federal judge in New Mexico would be the one to say no.
Read:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
Are people coming out of the peanut gallery now with idiotic, having nothing to do with the case in point scenarios now?
Yes, it is lawful for him to approach you, anyone can approach. But by your question, I assume you mean he approaches you because of your firearm. Well, it's not illegal for him to approach you, but he couldn't take your weapon unless he approached you for another reason. For instance, you match a description of a man who just committed a crime, or management informed him you were shoplifting. Unless he has some reason to approach you, then no he can't secure your firearm, but he can approach you all he wants.
I don't even know why I answered this question as it is completely irrelevant. A person who commits two traffic infractions broke the law, and an officer has every right to secure his weapon. Fully explained by statute, and does not include threat of arrest for non-existent crimes. Do you at least understand that?
And, despite your obvious bias, you do appear to understand and respond to the point presented by the example presented.
You are likely seeing such examples because you are refusing to either understand or address the points that are being presented to you. If you were to simply respond to the points presented instead of respond with points fabricated, this discussion would likely be done already.
Last edited on Fri Oct 23rd, 2009 01:38 pm by wrightme
|
Gordie
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 591 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23rd, 2009 01:48 pm |
|
| inNV, are you a cop? Please don't feel like I will look at you any differently if you are (I have several friends who are), just curious.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 02:44 am |
|
wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: DESERT ATILLA wrote:
inNV wrote: Prove he didn't have a REASONABLE suspicion.
Hey, next time you get pulled over, or a cop approaches you for a lawful purpose, and he asks to secure your firearm, tell him no and see what happens.
Scenario: I'm in a grocery store with a basket full of food. A LEO is also in the store and notices that I am OCng. Is it lawful for him to approach me? Is it lawful to seize my firearm "for his safety" while he talks to me? The Federal judge in New Mexico would be the one to say no.
Read:
http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
Are people coming out of the peanut gallery now with idiotic, having nothing to do with the case in point scenarios now?
Yes, it is lawful for him to approach you, anyone can approach. But by your question, I assume you mean he approaches you because of your firearm. Well, it's not illegal for him to approach you, but he couldn't take your weapon unless he approached you for another reason. For instance, you match a description of a man who just committed a crime, or management informed him you were shoplifting. Unless he has some reason to approach you, then no he can't secure your firearm, but he can approach you all he wants.
I don't even know why I answered this question as it is completely irrelevant. A person who commits two traffic infractions broke the law, and an officer has every right to secure his weapon. Fully explained by statute, and does not include threat of arrest for non-existent crimes. Do you at least understand that?
And, despite your obvious bias, you do appear to understand and respond to the point presented by the example presented.
You are likely seeing such examples because you are refusing to either understand or address the points that are being presented to you. If you were to simply respond to the points presented instead of respond with points fabricated, this discussion would likely be done already.
What have I not responded to?. It's like playing ring around the rosie with you guys. Am I supposed to keep answering to NRS' that have no bearing? And the ones that do, you all seem to ignore.
A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. Getting pulled over for traffic infractions makes you a CRIMINAL. He can take your gun and secure it. No, you are probably not a threat, but that doesn't matter You BROKE the LAW. Well not you personally, but you get the point. I don't see what part of that you don't understand. Does the law or an NRS specify the severity as to which laws have to be broken in order for a PO to secure your firearm?
And no I am not a cop.
|
DON`T TREAD ON ME
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 03:34 am |
|
What have I not responded to?. It's like playing ring around the rosie with you guys. Am I supposed to keep answering to NRS' that have no bearing? And the ones that do, you all seem to ignore.
A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. Getting pulled over for traffic infractions makes you a CRIMINAL. He can take your gun and secure it. No, you are probably not a threat, but that doesn't matter You BROKE the LAW. Well not you personally, but you get the point. I don't see what part of that you don't understand. Does the law or an NRS specify the severity as to which laws have to be broken in order for a PO to secure your firearm?
And no I am not a cop.
DON`t tread on me wrote:
Getting pulled over for traffic infraction makes you a criminal ? ? what ever do we need the courts for? and isn't it proper to say allegedly broke the law.
In my case the helmet law was never broken and they cannot come close to convicting me. So if I read you right, the fact that trooper Dudley mistakenly pulled me over, makes me a criminal therefore I must waive my rights?
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 05:47 am |
|
DON`T TREAD ON ME wrote:
What have I not responded to?. It's like playing ring around the rosie with you guys. Am I supposed to keep answering to NRS' that have no bearing? And the ones that do, you all seem to ignore.
A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. Getting pulled over for traffic infractions makes you a CRIMINAL. He can take your gun and secure it. No, you are probably not a threat, but that doesn't matter You BROKE the LAW. Well not you personally, but you get the point. I don't see what part of that you don't understand. Does the law or an NRS specify the severity as to which laws have to be broken in order for a PO to secure your firearm?
And no I am not a cop.
DON`t tread on me wrote:
Getting pulled over for traffic infraction makes you a criminal ? ? what ever do we need the courts for? and isn't it proper to say allegedly broke the law.
In my case the helmet law was never broken and they cannot come close to convicting me. So if I read you right, the fact that trooper Dudley mistakenly pulled me over, makes me a criminal therefore I must waive my rights?
The OP admitted what he did, no need to allege. Does someone who committed a crime get to hold on to their weapon until their court date? Whatever do we need bail for?
And please stop bringing up other cases, it's really getting annoying. If you can't argue the facts of THIS case, don't bother.Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 05:47 am by inNV
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:13 am |
|
inNV wrote: DON`T TREAD ON ME wrote:
What have I not responded to?. It's like playing ring around the rosie with you guys. Am I supposed to keep answering to NRS' that have no bearing? And the ones that do, you all seem to ignore.
A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. Getting pulled over for traffic infractions makes you a CRIMINAL. He can take your gun and secure it. No, you are probably not a threat, but that doesn't matter You BROKE the LAW. Well not you personally, but you get the point. I don't see what part of that you don't understand. Does the law or an NRS specify the severity as to which laws have to be broken in order for a PO to secure your firearm?
And no I am not a cop.
DON`t tread on me wrote:
Getting pulled over for traffic infraction makes you a criminal ? ? what ever do we need the courts for? and isn't it proper to say allegedly broke the law.
In my case the helmet law was never broken and they cannot come close to convicting me. So if I read you right, the fact that trooper Dudley mistakenly pulled me over, makes me a criminal therefore I must waive my rights?
The OP admitted what he did, no need to allege. Does someone who committed a crime get to hold on to their weapon until their court date? Whatever do we need bail for?
And please stop bringing up other cases, it's really getting annoying. If you can't argue the facts of THIS case, don't bother. His "crime" did not justify a confiscation of a firearm. No matter how often you attempt to misconstrue the point and avoid it. If you do not desire to discuss relevant cases, statutes, and points, feel free to cease responding.
How are you at reviewing "color of law?" That is very relevant to the OP. So is coercion. How are you at reviewing the attempt by the LE in the OP at coercing compliance with demands to comply to non-existent statute?
Until you actually respond to the relevant points presented, you will continue to receive relevant cases in attempts to get you to actually discuss the OP.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 06:16 am |
|
inNV wrote: DON`T TREAD ON ME wrote:
In my case the helmet law was never broken and they cannot come close to convicting me. So if I read you right, the fact that trooper Dudley mistakenly pulled me over, makes me a criminal therefore I must waive my rights?
If you can't argue the facts of THIS case, don't bother. Then why do you persist in responding? 
How about a direct response from you on a topic directly out of the OP. What statute required the presentation of a blue card as the LE attempted to require? That is a simple question for you, and is directly relevant. How do you respond since you desire to discuss the facts of THIS case?
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:06 am |
|
wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: DON`T TREAD ON ME wrote:
What have I not responded to?. It's like playing ring around the rosie with you guys. Am I supposed to keep answering to NRS' that have no bearing? And the ones that do, you all seem to ignore.
A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. Getting pulled over for traffic infractions makes you a CRIMINAL. He can take your gun and secure it. No, you are probably not a threat, but that doesn't matter You BROKE the LAW. Well not you personally, but you get the point. I don't see what part of that you don't understand. Does the law or an NRS specify the severity as to which laws have to be broken in order for a PO to secure your firearm?
And no I am not a cop.
DON`t tread on me wrote:
Getting pulled over for traffic infraction makes you a criminal ? ? what ever do we need the courts for? and isn't it proper to say allegedly broke the law.
In my case the helmet law was never broken and they cannot come close to convicting me. So if I read you right, the fact that trooper Dudley mistakenly pulled me over, makes me a criminal therefore I must waive my rights?
The OP admitted what he did, no need to allege. Does someone who committed a crime get to hold on to their weapon until their court date? Whatever do we need bail for?
And please stop bringing up other cases, it's really getting annoying. If you can't argue the facts of THIS case, don't bother. His "crime" did not justify a confiscation of a firearm. No matter how often you attempt to misconstrue the point and avoid it. If you do not desire to discuss relevant cases, statutes, and points, feel free to cease responding.
How are you at reviewing "color of law?" That is very relevant to the OP. So is coercion. How are you at reviewing the attempt by the LE in the OP at coercing compliance with demands to comply to non-existent statute?
Until you actually respond to the relevant points presented, you will continue to receive relevant cases in attempts to get you to actually discuss the OP.
It is justifiable to "secure" a weapon during a lawful traffic stop. Why do you insist on calling it confiscating? There was NO coercion. I have responded many times, and really it is getting old. The problem is you don't like the answers. Why is it so important to you that I agree with your ridiculous claims? If it so bad as you claim, then let the OP sue.
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:10 am |
|
wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: DON`T TREAD ON ME wrote:
In my case the helmet law was never broken and they cannot come close to convicting me. So if I read you right, the fact that trooper Dudley mistakenly pulled me over, makes me a criminal therefore I must waive my rights?
If you can't argue the facts of THIS case, don't bother. Then why do you persist in responding?
How about a direct response from you on a topic directly out of the OP. What statute required the presentation of a blue card as the LE attempted to require? That is a simple question for you, and is directly relevant. How do you respond since you desire to discuss the facts of THIS case?
No statute, and I have already addressed this..I believe at the start of this endless debate. But that I has nothing to do with his weapon being secured nor him being "detained" as you claim he was. Until you understand the fact that a cop can say what he wants, you will obviously get no where. Please specify which right(s) was/were violated, as that was the reason for me getting into this regrettable conversation in the first place. You got 10+ of them to choose from, fire away.Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:11 am by inNV
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:16 am |
|
inNV wrote: wrightme wrote:
inNV wrote: DON`T TREAD ON ME wrote:
In my case the helmet law was never broken and they cannot come close to convicting me. So if I read you right, the fact that trooper Dudley mistakenly pulled me over, makes me a criminal therefore I must waive my rights?
If you can't argue the facts of THIS case, don't bother. Then why do you persist in responding?
How about a direct response from you on a topic directly out of the OP. What statute required the presentation of a blue card as the LE attempted to require? That is a simple question for you, and is directly relevant. How do you respond since you desire to discuss the facts of THIS case?
No statute, and I have already addressed this..I believe at the start of this endless debate. But that I has nothing to do with his weapon being secured nor him being "detained" as you claim he was. Until you understand the fact that a cop can say what he wants, you will obviously get no where. Please specify which right(s) was/were violated, as that was the reason for me getting into this regrettable conversation in the first place. You got 10+ of them to choose from, fire away. No, you did not address this. What justification was there for the LE to threaten arrest for failure to present the blue card? You claim you desire to discuss the facts, then you refuse to do so. If you do not believe it had nothing to do with the weapon being secured (and threatened with confiscation), then you should re-read the OP.
If you truly feel that your entry into this discussion was regrettable, then feel free to engage in other threads. Otherwise, where is the justification for the LE's attempt to force (coerce) compliance with a non-existent statute? The OP was threatened with arrest, AND with confiscation of the firearm. AFTER the phone call you claim "cleared it up."
Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:18 am by wrightme
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:22 am |
|
Sheepdawg wrote: No voice recorder so this is what I remember.
"Lets see some paperwork for the bike and you better have your blue card(Clark County Registration)for that gun."
I hand over registration and insurance.
"The gun is registered."
"Wheres your blue card?"
"I'm not required to carry it."
"Could arrest you right now."
 Huh?
Before phone call, threat of arrest for failure to "prove" registration or present blue card.
It goes on like this for a few minutes. He wants to know how I'm going to prove that its registered, I keep telling him I don't have to prove it.
He goes back to his car. He's back there for about 20 mins. Looked like he was talking on his phone. Probably trying to find out if I'm right or not.
He comes back. Now he is telling my he could keep my gun and I would have to come pick it up later.(What? no arrest anymore, weird!)
Threat of confiscation, AFTER phone call.
He keeps on about how does he know its register and theres no serial # on the gun.(Its covered up by the Hogue grips I put on it. I keep on with "I don't need to carry the blue card, I don't need to prove its registered, yata yata yata."
"What if I wasn't a resident of Clark County?"
"I would arrest you."(We're back to that? Which is it?!)
Threat of arrest, falsely, AFTER the phone call.
"But I would have 60 days to register it."
"You gotta have a blue card."
"What if I bought it yesterday? I have 72 hour to register it."
"I would arrest you. You still have to have the blue card."
Yet another threat of arrest.
 My head hurts by this point.
"I need you to give me a reason not to take your gun."
And, another threat of confiscation.
What?! I'm starting to lose it!
"Sir, you do whatever you feel it necessary."
Notice I did not mention "rights" once. What justification did the LE have for continued threats of arrest and confiscation, absent relevant statute?
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:24 am |
|
The OP was not threatened with arrest.
Threat: Show me your blue card or I will arrest you.
What was actually said many times: I could/would arrest you.
First one, threat and coercion. Second one, just words. Cops aren't stupid, it's how he said it. So do you and the others that lack jurisprudence want to continue bringing up the same old argument I have answered oh 10 times now?Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:25 am by inNV
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:29 am |
|
Well I did mention rights, and that's my whole point, as a matter of fact my FIRST post was something along the lines of "no rights were violated" in response to the few who were screaming rights violations.
So what is your problem? Or is that because you can't think of a right that was violated you want to go this way? My whole argument is the NO RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. So if you agree, then we have no issue.
My first post for reference:
Although it sucks, and is a pain in the butt, no rights were violated. He took your gun as a precaution, which they are in their full rights to do. He hassled you a little bit, that's about it. As far as the "illegal search"..he asked you to open your bags, and you said yes. If you would have said no, and he did it anyway, that would be a different story. You got your gun back, and got a ticket for what he pulled you over for in the first place. Besides having to shell out money to the state for your ticket, and an officer who maybe did not know (or could have and was just messing with you) about the blue card, nothing really happened. Anyone who says your rights were violated clearly don't know what are rights actually are./i]Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:30 am by inNV
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:33 am |
|
inNV wrote: The OP was not threatened with arrest.
Threat: Show me your blue card or I will arrest you.
What was actually said many times: I could/would arrest you.
First one, threat and coercion. Second one, just words. Cops aren't stupid, it's how he said it. So do you and the others that lack jurisprudence want to continue bringing up the same old argument I have answered oh 10 times now?
Wheres your blue card?"
"I'm not required to carry it."
"Could arrest you right now."
Threat of arrest, in an attempt to falsely require presentation of the blue card. When the person hearing the cop speak believes he has been threatened with arrest, it IS coercion. I see you are still not responding to the "color of law."
So, since you believe I and others lack "jurisprudence," do you care to present us with information as to how you somehow are more qualified?
Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:33 am by wrightme
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1361 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:34 am |
|
inNV wrote: Well I did mention rights, and that's my whole point, as a matter of fact my FIRST post was something along the lines of "no rights were violated" in response to the few who were screaming rights violations.
So what is your problem? Or is that because you can't think of a right that was violated you want to go this way? My whole argument is the NO RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. So if you agree, then we have no issue. That leaves begging, why are you persisting? If that was your whole argument, why are you still arguing?
When a cop states "I need you to give me a reason not to take your gun," do you really believe a reasonable person will not understand that to be a threat? Do you really believe that only how the cop thinks of it is relevant? Do you not see that the color of law is operating here?
Last edited on Sat Oct 24th, 2009 07:36 am by wrightme
|
inNV
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 08:08 am |
|
Color of law would only apply (in this case) if HE was ARRESTED, it would have been a FALSE ARREST, and would have been covered under the color of law, something which you obviously know nothing about.
I already explained that what the PO said was not a threat. I showed you what a threat was. Why do you insist in still calling it a threat? I think that is the problem..you misunderstand what actually transpired.
"I need you to give me a reason not to take your gun"..or? Did he take his gun? Again, color of law would only apply if he was illegally deprived of his property. But as was stated, during a lawful, criminal traffic stop, it is with in the law to "secure" a firearm.
And the reason I still persist is: 1) It's fun to keep proving you guys wrong, and 2) maybe you'll learn something.
|
Current time is 11:58 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...   |
|
|
|
