| Author | Post |
|---|
mdguy90
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 51 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 4th, 2008 08:14 pm |
|
| Today as I was a passenger with my dad driving in the car, when we got pulled over for a traffic violation (not slowing down on 2 lane road while emergency vehicle is parked) and got a warning. Do I need to tell an officer if I'm carrying, or only when he asks? I didn't tell him as it had nothing to do with it and he didn't ask.
|
Equinox
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Colorado USA |
| Posts: | 62 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 4th, 2008 11:55 pm |
|
Unless required by law, I don't recommend revealing that kind information voluntarily unless asked or unless you need to make a movement toward a part of your car that has a weapon, like your glove box. Volunteering information is only inviting trouble. There's no need to play "gotcha games" with LEO. Besides you have 5th amendment rights.
Just my 2 cents.
|
vonu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 5th, 2008 01:30 am |
|
How would one know if it's required by law? Much of what we do that "is required by law" is required by a law that the claimer can't cite, like the apocryphal section in title 26 that requires most of us to pay income tax.
IMHO, 2A trumps 5A.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Dec 5th, 2008 01:39 am |
|
vonu wrote: SNIP IMHO, 2A trumps 5A.
 Depends on which way the muzzle is pointing.
(Sorry. I couldn't resist.)
|
opusd2
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Dec 5th, 2008 05:58 am |
|
When I took my basic course a few years back in order to get my CC permit, I believe I learned that you do need to inform the officer of such when you are carrying. But I will need to look over my materials before I swear to that fact. It's been a while.
|
JoeSparky
Centurion Member
|
Posted: Fri Dec 5th, 2008 07:43 am |
|
opusd2 wrote: When I took my basic course a few years back in order to get my CC permit, I believe I learned that you do need to inform the officer of such when you are carrying. But I will need to look over my materials before I swear to that fact. It's been a while.
But, his question was basically... as a passenger in a vehicle stopped by LEO do I have to volunteer that I am armed with a concealed weapon. And since he was not the driver the answer would be "NO"!
JoeSparky
|
vonu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 5th, 2008 12:08 pm |
|
JoeSparky wrote:
opusd2 wrote: When I took my basic course a few years back in order to get my CC permit, I believe I learned that you do need to inform the officer of such when you are carrying. But I will need to look over my materials before I swear to that fact. It's been a while.
But, his question was basically... as a passenger in a vehicle stopped by LEO do I have to volunteer that I am armed with a concealed weapon. And since he was not the driver the answer would be "NO"!
JoeSparky
Can you cite any legal authority that a driver waives his/her rights by being a driver?
This is just another reason to eschew the unconstitutional CC permit and exercise your right to remain silent. If the CC law requires the surrender of Constitutional rights, it's a violation of title 42 statutes.Last edited on Fri Dec 5th, 2008 12:11 pm by vonu
|
JoeSparky
Centurion Member
|
Posted: Fri Dec 5th, 2008 07:05 pm |
|
vonu wrote: JoeSparky wrote:
opusd2 wrote: When I took my basic course a few years back in order to get my CC permit, I believe I learned that you do need to inform the officer of such when you are carrying. But I will need to look over my materials before I swear to that fact. It's been a while.
But, his question was basically... as a passenger in a vehicle stopped by LEO do I have to volunteer that I am armed with a concealed weapon. And since he was not the driver the answer would be "NO"!
JoeSparky
Can you cite any legal authority that a driver waives his/her rights by being a driver?
This is just another reason to eschew the unconstitutional CC permit and exercise your right to remain silent. If the CC law requires the surrender of Constitutional rights, it's a violation of title 42 statutes.
The Driver does NOT give up any rights by being a driver, but if the vehicle the driver is operating is stoped by LEO it is the OPERATOR of the vehicle who is experiencing the special attention of the LEO NOT the passengers in the car. If the state that you are carrying in with your CCP requires you to notify the LEO during that states "Terry Stop" variation then to comply with the law you must notify. For example--- let us assume you ran a red light and were subsequently stopped by a LEO for this infraction. You are in a state that REQUIRES by statute that you notify an officer that you are a permit holder and are carrying a concealed weapon. Then YOU must according to that law notify the officer. YOUR PASSENGERS ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY.
This has nothing to do with your Federal "Peaceable Transport" laws allowing you to legally transport an unloaded firearm in a locked container when travelling between 2 points in which you can legally possess a firearm!
|
mrbiggles
Banned
| Joined: | Fri Oct 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 190 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 5th, 2008 09:55 pm |
|
most traffic violations are unconstitutional. even running red lights
|
vonu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 6th, 2008 01:49 am |
|
mrbiggles wrote:
most traffic violations are unconstitutional. even running red lights
That is true only if you have not surrendered your right to travel in exchange for a privilege to drive.
|
vonu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 6th, 2008 01:52 am |
|
JoeSparky wrote:
vonu wrote: JoeSparky wrote:
opusd2 wrote: When I took my basic course a few years back in order to get my CC permit, I believe I learned that you do need to inform the officer of such when you are carrying. But I will need to look over my materials before I swear to that fact. It's been a while.
But, his question was basically... as a passenger in a vehicle stopped by LEO do I have to volunteer that I am armed with a concealed weapon. And since he was not the driver the answer would be "NO"!
JoeSparky
Can you cite any legal authority that a driver waives his/her rights by being a driver?
This is just another reason to eschew the unconstitutional CC permit and exercise your right to remain silent. If the CC law requires the surrender of Constitutional rights, it's a violation of title 42 statutes.
The Driver does NOT give up any rights by being a driver, but if the vehicle the driver is operating is stoped by LEO it is the OPERATOR of the vehicle who is experiencing the special attention of the LEO NOT the passengers in the car. If the state that you are carrying in with your CCP requires you to notify the LEO during that states "Terry Stop" variation then to comply with the law you must notify. For example--- let us assume you ran a red light and were subsequently stopped by a LEO for this infraction. You are in a state that REQUIRES by statute that you notify an officer that you are a permit holder and are carrying a concealed weapon. Then YOU must according to that law notify the officer. YOUR PASSENGERS ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY.
This has nothing to do with your Federal "Peaceable Transport" laws allowing you to legally transport an unloaded firearm in a locked container when travelling between 2 points in which you can legally possess a firearm!
When a vehicle is stopped, all of the occupants are under arrest, and subject to that condition. I have found that the best way to startle a LEO is to ask if you are "free to go" in your first utterance. Most people don't understand what constitutes arrest. If they don't have probable cause to make the arrest, they don't have standing to do anything else. If you are under arrest, you have the right to remain silent, which, being constitutional, takes priority over any duty to inform that you committed to when you surrendered your right to keep and bear for a privilege to carry concealed.Last edited on Sat Dec 6th, 2008 01:55 am by vonu
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sat Dec 6th, 2008 02:39 am |
|
vonu wrote: SNIP If you are under arrest, you have the right to remain silent, which, being constitutional, takes priority over any duty to inform that you committed to when you surrendered your right to keep and bear for a privilege to carry concealed.
Hmmmm. That is an interesting theory.
I believe there are Supreme Court cases where, in dicta, the court has said a person does not have to answer questions. "The officer can ask, but the person is not required to answer...." That sort of thing.
|
mrbiggles
Banned
| Joined: | Fri Oct 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 190 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 6th, 2008 04:16 am |
|
vonu wrote: mrbiggles wrote:
most traffic violations are unconstitutional. even running red lights
That is true only if you have not surrendered your right to travel in exchange for a privilege to drive.
maybe,
but i was going at it in a different route.
mostly standing and subject matter jurisdiction
most states have "traffic court" in civil court.
w/o standing there is no jurisdiction.
standing requires an injury
|
opusd2
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Dec 6th, 2008 01:12 pm |
|
vonu wrote: mrbiggles wrote:
most traffic violations are unconstitutional. even running red lights
That is true only if you have not surrendered your right to travel in exchange for a privilege to drive.
This is truly interesting, that you even mentioned the fact that it is considered a "privilege" to drive and not a right, which is exactly the truth. Sometimes it is the smallest item stated which makes the biggest difference.
So all things considered, remaining quiet is probably the best possible action other than compliance for keeping the officer a little less excited.
|
vonu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 6th, 2008 03:54 pm |
|
opusd2 wrote:
vonu wrote: mrbiggles wrote:
most traffic violations are unconstitutional. even running red lights
That is true only if you have not surrendered your right to travel in exchange for a privilege to drive.
This is truly interesting, that you even mentioned the fact that it is considered a "privilege" to drive and not a right, which is exactly the truth. Sometimes it is the smallest item stated which makes the biggest difference.
So all things considered, remaining quiet is probably the best possible action other than compliance for keeping the officer a little less excited.
If you want to avoid giving the officer probable cause for further investigation and to avoid getting him excited, silent compliance is best. If he demands verbal testimony, invoke your right to remain silent.
|
vonu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 6th, 2008 03:58 pm |
|
Citizen wrote:
vonu wrote: SNIP If you are under arrest, you have the right to remain silent, which, being constitutional, takes priority over any duty to inform that you committed to when you surrendered your right to keep and bear for a privilege to carry concealed.
Hmmmm. That is an interesting theory.
I believe there are Supreme Court cases where, in dicta, the court has said a person does not have to answer questions. "The officer can ask, but the person is not required to answer...." That sort of thing.
There have been cases where anything said after the invocation of the right to remain silent have been found to be coerced and inadmissible.
|
vonu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 6th, 2008 04:03 pm |
|
Since I respect the desires of the forum to remain on topic, I'd like to invite anyone who wants to continue a conversation about rights and law to do so on the group I started on Yahoo! called VONULIFE.
Plus, it's been ignored since I started it on Thanksgiving, and VONULIFE is all about exercising the right to be left alone.
|
jbowers24
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Dec 7th, 2008 07:47 am |
|
| I've never read of any requirement to inform in WY.
|
vonu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 7th, 2008 04:28 pm |
|
jbowers24 wrote:
I've never read of any requirement to inform in WY.
It would seem to be counterproductive to make cc well known to bad apples that might use it to make points for themselves.
2A, after all, was so we could protect ourselves from corrupt government.
Now, we apply to corrupt governments to get permission to exercise our rights.
|
opusd2
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Dec 7th, 2008 07:03 pm |
|
Again, I will check with my literature that I got in class. It will be a while tho. But it is a moot point right now since not only does it seem like a bad idea to advertise while carrying, as well as the point that I now am in WI where CC is just not permitted.
|
Current time is 04:39 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
