|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,761
Campfire 'Bwana
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,761 |
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 firearm is concealed or not.
Knowingly or otherwise defending laws that violate our constitutional rights do not help the cause. Not an uncommon attitude, but one that has never had historical precedent in the US. But a felony DID used to mean that you had committed a very serious crime. Now felonies are handed out like candy for non-violent offenses.
“ The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,418
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,418 |
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. I doubt you have the intellect to understand much. However, your position on the 4th is clearly understood by me - and it's wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
"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 totality of the situation plays into the LAWFUL search and seizure. Read Terry v. Ohio. Given that the possible crime in progress was being committed by an ARMED suspect, and under the circumstances of the totality of the situation - including officer safety - the cop disarmed the suspect (very easily and without incident), and then ascertained the legality of the concealed carry. Under your scenario, the cop would be asking for a weapon from an armed and potentially dangerous individual, especially given the call that prompted the response to the store of an armed individual. What you suggest puts the officer in the position of having the person alerted to the situation and if nefarious having a greater opportunity to use that weapon. If the person refuses to produce a permit, you're going to have a situation with the officer then being forced to engage the suspect with his own weapon. You want the cop drawing down on someone when it is not absolutely necessary? Your opinion of probable cause is dead wrong; logically and legally. You'd do quite well to actually educate yourself on probable cause and Terry stops under the 4A before getting in way over your head. Assuming your "side" of reading comprehension can grasp this, that is.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
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. I doubt you have the intellect to understand much. However, your position on the 4th is clearly understood by me - and it's wrong. No, it's very far from wrong and you clearly don't understand it. You lack any education on the 4A at all, and it shows. Somehow, you cannot grasp "shall not be infringed" within the 2A, nor "unreasonable search and seizure" within the 4A. That is abundantly clear.
Last edited by 4ager; 02/01/17.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,418
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,418 |
We are way past the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2A. That ship sailed centuries ago. Issuing CC permits is an infringement and we universally accept them. The only question that remains is, how much infringement, will the courts permit.
Regarding the armed clerk, what crime was obvious to the officer at the time he disarmed him?? What reasonable suspicion did he have that the clerk was not legally carrying? Yes, the cop should have asked first for his permit before taking action. What if he was legal and the gun went off when the cop grabbed and took it from him and seriously injured an innocent man. Maybe could be you or me. The cop could have instructed the clerk to keep his hands visible and asked the question regarding whether he had a permit. I don't want every cop that may see my firearm grabbing for my handgun. Do you?? You think that's reasonable?? Again, please answer this question: DO YOU THINK IT IS REASONABLE FOR A COP TO THINK AN ARMED CITIZEN IS A CRIMINAL OR INVOLVED IN A CRIME?? IF NOT, THEN HE HAD NO REASONABLE SUSPICION.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
We are way past the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2A. That ship sailed centuries ago. Issuing CC permits is an infringement and we universally accept them. The only question that remains is, how much infringement, will the courts permit.
Regarding the armed clerk, what crime was obvious to the officer at the time he disarmed him?? What reasonable suspicion did he have that the clerk was not legally carrying? Yes, the cop should have asked first for his permit before taking action. What if he was legal and the gun went off when the cop grabbed and took it from him and seriously injured an innocent man. Maybe could be you or me. The cop could have instructed the clerk to keep his hands visible and asked the question regarding whether he had a permit. I don't want every cop that may see my firearm grabbing for my handgun. Do you?? You think that's reasonable?? Again, please answer this question: DO YOU THINK IT IS REASONABLE FOR A COP TO THINK AN ARMED CITIZEN IS A CRIMINAL OR INVOLVED IN A CRIME?? IF NOT, THEN HE HAD NO REASONABLE SUSPICION.
The cop had reasonable suspicion of a crime in progress (carrying concealed without a permit). Read the f'kin' case; read Terry v. Ohio; read the 4A. After that, read the 2A and definitions of "shall", "not", and "infringe"; apply that to arms (which includes magazines and components to make them functional). As to permits to carry being an infringement; perhaps, and perhaps not. You have a Constitutionally protected right to travel within the US, but it is also Constitutional for a state to require you have a permit to operate a motor vehicle on the highways. While you have a right to travel, you do not have a right to drive; that is a privilege. Given your utter lack of understanding of the 2A and the 4A, there is essentially no chance you'll understand that last section.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,418
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,418 |
We are way past the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2A. That ship sailed centuries ago. Issuing CC permits is an infringement and we universally accept them. The only question that remains is, how much infringement, will the courts permit.
Regarding the armed clerk, what crime was obvious to the officer at the time he disarmed him?? What reasonable suspicion did he have that the clerk was not legally carrying? Yes, the cop should have asked first for his permit before taking action. What if he was legal and the gun went off when the cop grabbed and took it from him and seriously injured an innocent man. Maybe could be you or me. The cop could have instructed the clerk to keep his hands visible and asked the question regarding whether he had a permit. I don't want every cop that may see my firearm grabbing for my handgun. Do you?? You think that's reasonable?? Again, please answer this question: DO YOU THINK IT IS REASONABLE FOR A COP TO THINK AN ARMED CITIZEN IS A CRIMINAL OR INVOLVED IN A CRIME?? IF NOT, THEN HE HAD NO REASONABLE SUSPICION.
The cop had reasonable suspicion of a crime in progress (carrying concealed without a permit). Read the f'kin' case; read Terry v. Ohio; read the 4A. After that, read the 2A and definitions of "shall", "not", and "infringe"; apply that to arms (which includes magazines and components to make them functional). As to permits to carry being an infringement; perhaps, and perhaps not. You have a Constitutionally protected right to travel within the US, but it is also Constitutional for a state to require you have a permit to operate a motor vehicle on the highways. While you have a right to travel, you do not have a right to drive; that is a privilege. Given your utter lack of understanding of the 2A and the 4A, there is essentially no chance you'll understand that last section. It is you who doesn't understand that last section. Not having a driver's license does not prevent one from moving around the country. There are plenty of other modes of transportation one can take if one does not have a driver's license. If it was the ONLY way to travel, then it would be an infringement, but it is not. I have read Terry v Ohio. "Terry v Ohio is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and ( not OR, but, and, meaning both situations have to be satisfied) has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." (Bold and italic are mine) Did the officer in the Rodriguez v USA case have reasonable suspicion that Rodriguez had committed a crime, is committing a crime or is about to commit a crime, by the fact that he was carrying a gun while working at a convenience store (which are commonly victims of robberies) by the mere fact that he was armed? The officer has to be able to verbalize the crime that he suspects the detainee to have committed. It can't be a fishing exhibition. Since a CC permit was required in that State and I'm assuming that one has to produce said permit upon request by a LEO, then the Officer had the right to ask for his permit and once it could not be produced THEN and ONLY THEN does he have a reasonable suspicion that the clerk has committed a crime. Unless that LEO is a mind reader,(based on the synopsis of the facts in the OP), he had no reasonable suspicion of a the clerk committing, having committed, or about to commit a crime at the time the gun was seized. Therefore, IMO, it was a 4th Amendment violation.
Last edited by cooper57m; 02/01/17.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 17,101
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 17,101 |
However, even with ConCarry, in the situation of a perceived crime in progress and Terry Stop, officer safety WILL still permit the disarming of persons of interest until legality of possession and actions are ascertained. Totally agree, but we need some case law saying that disarming citizens is done with limits... there were no limits discussed in this case, which was the whole point. a use of force continuum applies
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 17,101
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 17,101 |
"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. A. learn the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. B he only reds reasonable suspicion to initiate a terry stop, including the seizure of possible contraband
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,418
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,418 |
"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. A. learn the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. B he only reds reasonable suspicion to initiate a terry stop, including the seizure of possible contraband And what was the LEO's reasonable suspicion of a crime in this case? Is it the just fact that he had a gun? Is that all that's needed? If so, and if that is seen as justified by those who have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, then we have lost more than I realized. We are screwed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,708 Likes: 18
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,708 Likes: 18 |
"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. Back in the days when concealed carry permits were rare, and most people didn't even know they existed, my uncle on Long Island had one. He originally got in the habit of carrying when he worked as a parole officer, back in the 1960s. When he moved on to being a practicing attorney, he got his carry license. I remember he told me the story of when, in the 1970s, a cop noticed he was carrying while he was in line at a fast food place. The cop walked up to him and said, "I hope you have a license to carry that." His reply was, "Of course I do." The cop didn't even ask to see it ... just moved on. I guess he replied with such confidence and calmness that the cop figured he was telling the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 17,101
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 17,101 |
g "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. A. learn the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. B he only reds reasonable suspicion to initiate a terry stop, including the seizure of possible contraband And what was the LEO's reasonable suspicion of a crime in this case? Is it the just fact that he had a gun? Is that all that's needed? If so, and if that is seen as justified by those who have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, then we have lost more than I realized. We are screwed. under NM LAW, YES that's all that's required to justify reasonable suspicion. I would suggest you go read the league link provided on page 1
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,716
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,716 |
What is the difference between having a gun in public and on private property? I assume the store was private property, though a public place. Is my pistol in the dresser drawer by the bed a concealed gun? How about in the glove box? Denver excluded, Colorado allows for carry in cars, and open carry. The one time I was stopped with a hunting pistol under my jacket, I was asked, handed it over, and it was unloaded until we were done.
As for felons: there is probably a felony jaywalking law on the book.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,418
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,418 |
"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. Back in the days when concealed carry permits were rare, and most people didn't even know they existed, my uncle on Long Island had one. He originally got in the habit of carrying when he worked as a parole officer, back in the 1960s. When he moved on to being a practicing attorney, he got his carry license. I remember he told me the story of when a cop noticed he was carrying while he was in line at a fast food place. The cop walked up to him and said, "I hope you have a license to carry that." His reply was, "Of course I do." The cop didn't even ask to see it. Just moved on. I guess he replied with such confidence and calmness that he figured he was telling the truth. And that's the way a reasonable LEO should handle that situation. I've never been asked about my CC permit by a LEO while carrying, but if am, that is how I expect it to be handled, not having a cop grab my pistol, handcuff or assault me. Too much to ask??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,708 Likes: 18
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,708 Likes: 18 |
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. I have always been in your camp on this question. Do your time, all rights are in place again. You've paid your debt, according to the system. If the system doesn't think you've adequately paid your debt, then they should have sentenced you for longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,418
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,418 |
under NM LAW, YES that's all that's required to justify reasonable suspicion. I would suggest you go read the league link provided on page 1 Then we are screwed and living in a police state. Anyone supporting such a position, is truly an enemy of the Constitution. I guess NY isn't the only State with stupid unconstitutional laws. Who would have guessed?
Last edited by cooper57m; 02/01/17.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,708 Likes: 18
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,708 Likes: 18 |
We are way past the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2A. That ship sailed centuries ago. Issuing CC permits is an infringement and we universally accept them. The only question that remains is, how much infringement, will the courts permit. A neighbor of mine feels so strongly about this that he refused to apply for a license to carry. He carries whenever he feels the need, figuring it's no one's business, and his right is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. In fact, he did a ride along with me once when I was meeting with someone who wanted to buy a rifle of mine. He was armed at the time with a .38.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,708 Likes: 18
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,708 Likes: 18 |
Yep. That's why, whenever I have an encounter with a police officer, I temporarily disarm him for my safety. When we're done, I unload his weapon and put it in his squad car trunk. So far, none of them have complained about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
"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. Back in the days when concealed carry permits were rare, and most people didn't even know they existed, my uncle on Long Island had one. He originally got in the habit of carrying when he worked as a parole officer, back in the 1960s. When he moved on to being a practicing attorney, he got his carry license. I remember he told me the story of when a cop noticed he was carrying while he was in line at a fast food place. The cop walked up to him and said, "I hope you have a license to carry that." His reply was, "Of course I do." The cop didn't even ask to see it. Just moved on. I guess he replied with such confidence and calmness that he figured he was telling the truth. And that's the way a reasonable LEO should handle that situation. I've never been asked about my CC permit by a LEO while carrying, but if am, that is how I expect it to be handled, not having a cop grab my pistol, handcuff or assault me. Too much to ask?? Again, "totality of the situation". Do yourself a favor and figure that out.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
327 members (1lesfox, 160user, 2500HD, 10ring1, 01Foreman400, 12344mag, 27 invisible),
1,943
guests, and
1,091
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,244
Posts18,486,016
Members73,967
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
