Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Gorsuch and concealed weapons and the 4th Amendment

In Oklahoma (the most red state in the Union) our CCW law requires a concealed carry permit holder to notify any police officer with whom he comes in contact. I used to think this was not a good requirement, but if that same requirement had been in force in this situation, the felon who was illegally carrying would have been required to "tell" this officer he was carrying. Had this been Oklahoma, the officer could have legally asked him if he was a CCW permit holder.

Another 4th Amendment case with Gorsuch, but in this one he stood up against the state's right to encroach and wrote a dissent. I like what he has to say here.

Not in Iowa.

I agree but I am waiting to see how it works in Washington state. They have passed a background check law that goes way beyond stupid. LEOs are exempt but citizens are not. So if you are stopped while carrying the officer is within his legal right to temporarily detain your firearm and the law protects him but at the end of the stop if he tries to give it back and you take it you have broken the background check law and may become a felon.

+1

You know, in that case Scott, I'd almost be ok with them either having me assume the position or even putting me in cuffs rather than them taking my weapon into possession. Having said that, that law needs to go away.

Why, you are clearly a liberal anti-2A f'k. A citizen exercising his 2A rights should not be detained unless there are other reasons for the stop. All CC permits are anti-2A. A US citizen should not need a permit to exercise a constitutional right. Only a friggin' idiot Liberal would think a cop should stop anyone just for exercising his Constitutional rights. A weapon on a citizen should be no more cause for concern than a weapon on a cop, unless that citizen is in the act of committing a crime. Read up on the 2A you Liberal puke! I'll also throw in that you are anti-4A as well, you commie bastard.

You are truly a sad excuse for anything at all.

Read the rest of the thread, jackass.

Then again, please regale us AGAIN about why you support bans on firearms and magazine restrictions such as the NYSAFE Act.

I never said I supported the SAFE Act you Liberal puke. In fact, I attended several rallys against it and advocated for people to disregard the "assault weapon" ban, which NYers have done on a large scale. I did state, a while back, that I am not a fan of military style rifles; my personal preference. I did, ask whether shooters would rather have magazine restrictions than to have a ban on the rifle platform itself. I get it, the answer was a resounding NO! My point back then was, there are a large # of shooters here in NY who would NOW welcome a magazine restriction IF it meant they could shoot their ARs and AKs again which are now squirreled away in attics and basements and can't be used for fear of arrest.

You see, the 2A does not address a firearm's capacity in any way. It does state that we have the right to bear (carry) arms. So, if you think that a cop should stop a guy because he is bearing arms and disarm him. YOU are the one who is anti-2A you disgusting liberal puke!

You stated, quite clearly, that you were fine with a ban of those rifles.

You're about to be proven a liar - again.

Proof - Link

As to the 4A, try reading it. Here's a hint: "unreasonable searches and seizures". Start there, dumbass.

On the 4A - you are essentially saying that it is unreasonable (key word in the 4A) for a LEO to stop a person who may be in the commission of a crime (in the case at hand a felon carrying illegally) to ascertain whether a crime is actually being committed.

Think about that - or get someone with a functional brain to do so for you and explain it to your retarded ass.

You show me you disgusting Liberal puke, where I EVER said I was for the banning of "assault-style" weapons. You see you read into my post what you wanted to see you disgusting illiterate liberal puke!

Explain to me midget brain, what suspicious act the clerk was involved in to give the cop reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed? Did he know the clerk was a felon before the action was taken to detain and disarm him?? If not, then he would have done the same to ANY citizen. The fact that this time it was a felon, does not justify the action. You anti-Constitution Liberal Commie azzwipe!

Supporting a magazine ban -



Worried about losing Remington 1100s because of assault weapons, a clear insinuation that one is more worthy than the other -



Again supporting a magazine ban, but certainly NOT saying you would be opposed to an "assault weapons ban" (leftist terminology, as there are no commonly available "assault weapons) -



More gems on bans -



Oh, this is just CLASSIC leftist, liberalist puke; blaming the firearms for mass shootings -



When THIS happens, you cannot ever claim any defense of the 2A; he was an Obama voter -



Caring more about public opinion and PR than the actual 2A -



Most of you are reading more into my posts than what is there. I agree with civil disobedience and I would not recommend anyone turning in their high capacity mags if they were banned. My point is, if a high mag capacity ban means that you get to use your AR etc. with 5 round mags, isn't that better than an outright ban on the platforms themselves, that would make it very difficult for you to transport or use your AR types again? The NY ban on selling "assault rifles" and the requirement to register them, and the ban on high capacity mags have not been overturned by the courts. Expecting protection from the courts is a long-shot. We either try to appear reasonable and somewhat flexible or they will be made illegal outright. If that happens, by all means, keep them and don't turn them in, but that is defiance and not a victory. They are now calling these firearms "weapons of war" rather than "assault weapons." I'm telling you that they are winning the PR war and with every incident that happens, they win more support. It's just a matter of time before the call for a ban is so overwhelming that the politicians will fold on us. And they will!! We can either find a way for these rifles to appear less dangerous or they will be make them illegal. When that happens, I'm all for civil disobedience like we are doing here in NY. [/quote]

The clerk was carrying concealed, which in that state is a FELONY without a permit. I.e., probable cause of a crime in progress. The cop saw the clerk carrying a concealed pistol - there's the probable cause of a crime in progress. The cop simply snatched the pistol from his belt (Mexican carry), and then checked to see whether the felon in question had a permit (he did not). The result was a valid arrest.

If you could 1) read, and 2) comprehend what you read, you'd get that.

As to whether it could be done to any citizen, YES, it could. In the case of a LAW-ABIDING citizen with a permit, the LEO would have seen a valid permit and returned the handgun (and probably made a suggestion about a better holster and concealment).

There's that whole "unreasonable search and seizure" part of the Fourth Amendment that is just completely beyond your comprehension again.

You do realize that you are being made to be an even bigger fool the more you dig this hole than you were already known to be before this thread, right? At this point, there is no need to call you stupid; you're proving it beyond any shadow of a doubt with every post.

Thanks for re-posting my posts. They clearly show and state, that I am NOT in favor of a ban on "assault weapons" (in quotes because I do understand that they are not truly assault weapons but mere semi-auto look alikes).

"I agree with civil disobedience and I would not recommend anyone turning in their high capacity mags if they were banned. My point is, if a high mag capacity ban means that you get to use your AR etc. with 5 round mags, [b]isn't that better than an outright ban on the platforms themselves, [/b]that would make it very difficult for you to transport or use your AR types again?"

Clearly, I never said I was in favor of an "assault weapons" ban. In fact I said the opposite. I was trying to figure out a way to keep the AR and AK semi-auto platforms in the hands of shooters when it looked like the winds were not blowing in our favor. Now, thankfully, (for at least the next 4 years) the winds are in our favor.

You may not agree with my favoring a mag capacity restriction IF it was to mean that you get to keep your ARs and AKs and similar rifles. But running around saying I am an anti-2A Liberal is as much a falsehood as me saying you are one too because I disagree with your take on the situation outlined in this thread. Understand???

Oh, your position on the 2A is quite clearly understood.

Would you always hand over your CWP with your license or did the context of those three stops impress you to do that?

"The clerk was carrying concealed, which in that state is a FELONY without a permit. I.e., probable cause of a crime in progress. The cop saw the clerk carrying a concealed pistol - there's the probable cause of a crime in progress. The cop simply snatched the pistol from his belt (Mexican carry), and then checked to see whether the felon in question had a permit (he did not). The result was a valid arrest."

Cart/Horse. IMO, there was no probable cause WHEN he took the action of disarming the clerk. It would have been reasonable for the cop to ask to see the clerk's permit upon seeing that he was carrying concealed (as much as I see needing permits to carry concealed as anti-2A, you shouldn't need a permit by the Gov't to engage in a guaranteed right). WHEN the clerk could not produce the permit, THEN and only THEN does he have reasonable suspicion that a CRIME has been committed. At that point the firearm should be seized and the clerk detained and arrested. Just the mere fact that he was carrying a pistol is NOT REASONABLE suspicion of a crime, unless you are saying that it is REASONABLE for a cop to think all people who carry guns are criminals. IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING??

My reading comprehension is just fine thanks and I dare say a damned side better than yours.

The bigger question is why was a convicted felon out of prison in the first place?

If the individual has been adjudicated incompetent/unsafe to have rights reinstated ie. bear arms as enumerated by the constitution, then they should not be allowed into the general population.

If the individual has been rehabilitated and adjudicated to be safe in society then give his rights back and leave him and the rest of us alone, regardless of whether his/our firearm is concealed or not.

Knowingly or otherwise defending laws that violate our constitutional rights do not help the cause.