There was a big thread a week or two back about a court decision in which they upheld a cop's right to disarm and frisk any concealed carry people upon a stop.
Looks like Gorsuch agreed with a similar opinion. He didn't write the opinion, but he signed on to it.
One case is hardly cause for panic, but it's good to be aware of it and I hope that one of the brilliant pro-2A Senators grills him on it during his confirmation hearing.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/judge_neil_gorsuch_some_cause_for_concern.htmlOn the other hand, there is reason for pause with Judge Gorsuch's record. Judge Gorsuch joined in one opinion, United States v. Rodriguez, 739 F.3d 481 (11th Cir. 2013), which causes us to have some concern about his understanding of the relationship between the government and an armed citizenry. To be fair, Judge Gorsuch did not write the Rodriguez opinion – his colleague, Judge Bobby Baldock, was the author. Nevertheless, Judge Gorsuch joined the opinion. He could have filed a principled dissenting opinion, or even a concurring opinion agreeing only in the judgment.
The facts of the case are these. A New Mexico policeman observed Mr. Rodriguez, a convenience store clerk, carrying a concealed handgun. Carrying a concealed loaded handgun is illegal in New Mexico without a permit but legal if one has a license to do so. The officer, upon seeing a Rodriguez's handgun, detained him, then – acting first and asking questions later – forcibly disarmed Rodriguez. After finding out that Rodriguez did not, in fact, have a license to carry and, indeed, was a convicted felon, the officer placed him under arrest.
Of course, hard cases make bad law. But the precedent from the Rodriguez opinion will affect police-citizen relations in New Mexico, and possibly elsewhere in the Tenth Circuit, for many years to come. Not bothering to figure out the legality of Rodriguez's firearm before detaining and disarming him, the officer's initial actions would have been the same even if Mr. Rodriguez had been a lawful gun owner.
According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.
I'm not sure its a big deal. Like we keep saying here, when in contact with LEO just comply with them..if they feel better with you disarmed so be it, it will only be temporary.
There was a big thread a week or two back about a court decision in which they upheld a cop's right to disarm and frisk any concealed carry people upon a stop.
Looks like Gorsuch agreed with a similar opinion. He didn't write the opinion, but he signed on to it.
One case is hardly cause for panic, but it's good to be aware of it and I hope that one of the brilliant pro-2A Senators grills him on it during his confirmation hearing.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/judge_neil_gorsuch_some_cause_for_concern.htmlOn the other hand, there is reason for pause with Judge Gorsuch's record. Judge Gorsuch joined in one opinion, United States v. Rodriguez, 739 F.3d 481 (11th Cir. 2013), which causes us to have some concern about his understanding of the relationship between the government and an armed citizenry. To be fair, Judge Gorsuch did not write the Rodriguez opinion – his colleague, Judge Bobby Baldock, was the author. Nevertheless, Judge Gorsuch joined the opinion. He could have filed a principled dissenting opinion, or even a concurring opinion agreeing only in the judgment.
The facts of the case are these. A New Mexico policeman observed Mr. Rodriguez, a convenience store clerk, carrying a concealed handgun. Carrying a concealed loaded handgun is illegal in New Mexico without a permit but legal if one has a license to do so. The officer, upon seeing a Rodriguez's handgun, detained him, then – acting first and asking questions later – forcibly disarmed Rodriguez. After finding out that Rodriguez did not, in fact, have a license to carry and, indeed, was a convicted felon, the officer placed him under arrest.
Of course, hard cases make bad law. But the precedent from the Rodriguez opinion will affect police-citizen relations in New Mexico, and possibly elsewhere in the Tenth Circuit, for many years to come. Not bothering to figure out the legality of Rodriguez's firearm before detaining and disarming him, the officer's initial actions would have been the same even if Mr. Rodriguez had been a lawful gun owner.
According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.
That is a great reason for concern, IMO. Trump should have better vetted him.
I'm not sure its a big deal. Like we keep saying here, when in contact with LEO just comply with them..if they feel better with you disarmed so be it, it will only be temporary.
That's fine, but the precedent set was that an officer is privileged to commit a battery upon anyone they believe is armed, without first determining if they are lawfully or unlawfully armed. That's a huge problem.
Follow the Constitution.
Like it or not, it's a sword that cuts both ways.
“The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” ~ A. Scalia
Terry stop; been Constitutionally valid for a long damned time.
Are some folks so daft as to think that the cop should stop someone and NOT check for weapons in the course of the stop? Holy f'k...
Maybe you missed that "forcibly disarmed" part in the story above?
That means any cop has the right to forcibly disarm any citizen before they even ask if you have a license. You good with that?
Terry stop; been Constitutionally valid for a long damned time.
Are some folks so daft as to think that the cop should stop someone and NOT check for weapons in the course of the stop? Holy f'k...
There was no probable cause to stop him. From what I'm reading, a convenience store clerk's gun printed and the cop forcibly disarmed him AND THEN checked to see if he was legal.
I'm not sure its a big deal. Like we keep saying here, when in contact with LEO just comply with them..if they feel better with you disarmed so be it, it will only be temporary.
Agreed
Maybe you missed that "forcibly disarmed" part in the story above?
That means any cop has the right to forcibly disarm any citizen before they even ask if you have a license. You good with that?
I did miss that part.....sorry.
Ive had three stops while carrying, in each case I handed over my CWP along with my drivers license, and luckily got three courteous and clear thinking officers who considered it a non-issue...once they knew.
Again strict compliance may avoid the "forcibly" part for you.
Terry stop; been Constitutionally valid for a long damned time.
Are some folks so daft as to think that the cop should stop someone and NOT check for weapons in the course of the stop? Holy f'k...
And by the way, the previous thread a week or so back was about a cop stopping and frisking a passenger in a car after getting a report of somebody in a dark parking loading a gun. The passenger refused to talk to the cop, and I had no problem with the cop at that time frisking him and disarming him. He had probable cause to believe the guy was armed, and upon checking the guy was uncooperative and present in a high crime neighborhood.
So don't go all Terry stop on me.
Shouldn't cops check someone's drivers license before pulling them over (detaining them) and asking them to take keys out of ignition (disarming them) prior to pulling them over?
Not everyone is concerned.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...suchs-nomination-to-the-us-supreme-courtCan anyone name a better nominee?
One that could actually pass the vetting and get confirmed?
The cop got it right. A bad guy lost his firearm and it turns out he was a convicted felon. If the bad guy would have had it open carry, would the officer acted the same way? Who knows. The bottom line is the guy was a convicted felon and he had no right to carry at all.
None of us were there a the time the stop and frisk was made. (Terry vs Ohio) We don't know all the circumstances and we don't know what else the Officer knew or saw that is not reported in this piece.
I see this decision as supporting the LEO and protecting future LEO's as they do their job. I completely disagree with the sentence that says " Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights". Everyday we get bombarded by people, courts, the media and lawyers about respecting the rights of Americans and we were expected to protect and honor those rights.
Some folks have lost their 2nd Amendment rights through their own bad behavior. It's the LEO's job to sort that out, sometimes in difficult circumstances and on very short notice. This decision by the courts says that the 10th Circuit supports the LEO's making those difficult decisions.
kwg
In our current position of strength, we should not be compromising one iota.
Maybe you missed that "forcibly disarmed" part in the story above?
That means any cop has the right to forcibly disarm any citizen before they even ask if you have a license. You good with that?
Yup, you are correct, it is a "Story".
Here is the actual decision.
read it then come back with something more that what was published as a "story".
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020131231054/U.S.%20v.%20RODRIGUEZ
The cop got it right. A bad guy lost his firearm and it turns out he was a convicted felon. If the bad guy would have had it open carry, would the officer acted the same way? Who knows. The bottom line is the guy was a convicted felon and he had no right to carry at all.
None of us were there a the time the stop and frisk was made. (Terry vs Ohio) We don't know all the circumstances and we don't know what else the Officer knew or saw that is not reported in this piece.
I see this decision as supporting the LEO and protecting future LEO's as they do their job. I completely disagree with the sentence that says " Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights". Everyday we get bombarded by people, courts, the media and lawyers about respecting the rights of Americans and we were expected to protect and honor those rights.
Some folks have lost their 2nd Amendment rights through their own bad behavior. It's the LEO's job to sort that out, sometimes in difficult circumstances and on very short notice. This decision by the courts says that the 10th Circuit supports the LEO's making those difficult decisions.
kwg
The officer did get it right, but that's not the basis upon which to make a legal decision. You have to think about the precedent set for other officers and
lawfully armed citizens. Officers have to get it right
while acting within the law. It makes their job more difficult, but it's not supposed to be easy for police in America where we have a Bill of Rights. Mexican cops have it real easy, but you wouldn't want to be stopped by a cop in Mexico.
Maybe you missed that "forcibly disarmed" part in the story above?
That means any cop has the right to forcibly disarm any citizen before they even ask if you have a license. You good with that?
Yup, you are correct, it is a "Story".
Here is the actual decision.
read it then come back with something more that what was published as a "story".
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020131231054/U.S.%20v.%20RODRIGUEZ This is good information. Thanks for posting it Steve. The cop got it right and the 10th Circuit got it right.
kwg
We should immediately start a 24HCF petition for the withdrawal of Gorsuch and that TRH (if that is his 'real' name) be named as nominee. We have a long record of his judicial philosophy here on the fire.
He clearly has a greater legal mind than the current nominee and no doubt pass vetting easily.
Maybe you missed that "forcibly disarmed" part in the story above?
That means any cop has the right to forcibly disarm any citizen before they even ask if you have a license. You good with that?
Maybe you are unfamiliar with Terry stops.
You want the cop to leave any person stopped completely armed if they simply say "no"? You think that illegally armed felon was going to say "sure", and that he posed no threat?
Steve: Let's just say TRH has some resentment (justified or not, I will let him address) issues with the LEO community and leave it at that.
Terry stop; been Constitutionally valid for a long damned time.
Are some folks so daft as to think that the cop should stop someone and NOT check for weapons in the course of the stop? Holy f'k...
There was no probable cause to stop him. From what I'm reading, a convenience store clerk's gun printed and the cop forcibly disarmed him AND THEN checked to see if he was legal.
The PC is that carrying concealed without a permit is illegal in that state. That is probable cause of a possible crime in progress.
Steve: Let's just say TRH has some resentment (justified or not, I will let him address) issues with the LEO community and leave it at that.
Well, they are in his neighborhood quite often busting his neighbors...
The officer did get it right, but that's not the basis upon which to make a legal decision. You have to think about the precedent set for other officers and lawfully armed citizens. Officers have to get it right while acting within the law. It makes their job more difficult, but it's not supposed to be easy for police in America where we have a Bill of Rights. Mexican cops have it real easy, but you wouldn't want to be stopped by a cop in Mexico.
Bullshit, plain and simple. A LEO needs the tools to protect himself while doing his job. Any cop wants to put me on a wall, frisk me, and disarm me is welcome to do so, as long as he acts professionally.
Dicking around and asking to see permits would see officers get shot. I have no issue if an officer feels he needs me disarmed in any interaction.
Fact is, the cops don't always deal with the law abiding. Fair play simply doesn't work in hostile and life threatening situations.
And there is a marked difference between suspicion and probable cause. A policeman may stop and frisk due to suspicion. And suspicion, in uncountable court cases, is a very low bar.
The cop did right, and so did the courts...
Maybe you missed that "forcibly disarmed" part in the story above?
That means any cop has the right to forcibly disarm any citizen before they even ask if you have a license. You good with that?
Yup, you are correct, it is a "Story".
Here is the actual decision.
read it then come back with something more that what was published as a "story".
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020131231054/U.S.%20v.%20RODRIGUEZ Oops.
Damned facts, anyway.
Reading the actual court record on the matter eases my concerns a great deal. The summation of the events from the article didn't seem to get it quite right.
There was a big thread a week or two back about a court decision in which they upheld a cop's right to disarm and frisk any concealed carry people upon a stop.
Looks like Gorsuch agreed with a similar opinion. He didn't write the opinion, but he signed on to it.
One case is hardly cause for panic, but it's good to be aware of it and I hope that one of the brilliant pro-2A Senators grills him on it during his confirmation hearing.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/01/judge_neil_gorsuch_some_cause_for_concern.htmlOn the other hand, there is reason for pause with Judge Gorsuch's record. Judge Gorsuch joined in one opinion, United States v. Rodriguez, 739 F.3d 481 (11th Cir. 2013), which causes us to have some concern about his understanding of the relationship between the government and an armed citizenry. To be fair, Judge Gorsuch did not write the Rodriguez opinion – his colleague, Judge Bobby Baldock, was the author. Nevertheless, Judge Gorsuch joined the opinion. He could have filed a principled dissenting opinion, or even a concurring opinion agreeing only in the judgment.
The facts of the case are these. A New Mexico policeman observed Mr. Rodriguez, a convenience store clerk, carrying a concealed handgun. Carrying a concealed loaded handgun is illegal in New Mexico without a permit but legal if one has a license to do so. The officer, upon seeing a Rodriguez's handgun, detained him, then – acting first and asking questions later – forcibly disarmed Rodriguez. After finding out that Rodriguez did not, in fact, have a license to carry and, indeed, was a convicted felon, the officer placed him under arrest.
Of course, hard cases make bad law. But the precedent from the Rodriguez opinion will affect police-citizen relations in New Mexico, and possibly elsewhere in the Tenth Circuit, for many years to come. Not bothering to figure out the legality of Rodriguez's firearm before detaining and disarming him, the officer's initial actions would have been the same even if Mr. Rodriguez had been a lawful gun owner.
According to the 10th Circuit's opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him. Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights. Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.
TRH - I agree with you
Reading the actual court record on the matter eases my concerns a great deal. The summation of the events from the article didn't seem to get it quite right.
Well, that makes all the difference. TRH is relieved; y'all just stop the presses and know all is good with the world because the paranoid has his concerns eased.
I'm not sure its a big deal. Like we keep saying here, when in contact with LEO just comply with them..if they feel better with you disarmed so be it, it will only be temporary.
I don't carry concealed but that's the way I'd play it.
Generally with cops...you get what you give.
I got stopped for speeding right after we moved here. Was carrying concealed, no permit, as is legal. Told the officer I was carrying. He had me exit the truck, removed my pistol from its holster(as is legal for him to do), had me sit in the truck while he ran my license.
He came back, handed me my license, unloaded pistol, the mag, and asked me to slow down in the future and to have a nice evening.
I do not know all of the facts surrounding the decision that Calhoun linked above but after reading the appeal decision am curious if many folks are getting caught up in the word "forcible". Perhaps many people take the word forcible to mean "using an act of violence", which it indeed can mean.
Strange enough the definition of forcible in the Cambridge Dictionary reads as this:
forcible: adjective. Involving physical power
forcible: adjective. Without choice
If one considers these definitions in regards to the incident linked above then it is certainly reasonable to also derive that as the the officer stated, he was there for 2 men reported to be armed, he saw the gun while contacting the individual, physically removed the weapon without force or violence simply for officer and individual safety and then id'd the individual where upon the felon status was revealed.
Not saying that's how things went, just that there is no evidence the individual was roughed up in any way and quite possibly folks are hung up on personal interpretation of the word "forcible".
I am no scholar of law, but believe in most states that issue ccw permits that carrying a concealed weapon is in fact illegal by state statute and that the ccw then becomes a permittable defense to violation of said law. Obviously this is null in void in states without ccw permits.
To date..I've never had anything but cooperation and compliance with anyone with a concealed carry permit. Just be smart about what you're doing. If an officer asks if you're armed, tell them the truth. I dont want to see your gun and I'll probably ask that you leave it where it is until I'm gone. If I need to disarm you, the fact that you have a permit means nothing. Just a couple recommendations... know exactly what you can and can't do with it and don't be drunk and carrying. Thank you once again for your support.
I got stopped for speeding right after we moved here. Was carrying concealed, no permit, as is legal. Told the officer I was carrying. He had me exit the truck, removed my pistol from its holster(as is legal for him to do), had me sit in the truck while he ran my license.
He came back, handed me my license, unloaded pistol, the mag, and asked me to slow down in the future and to have a nice evening.
thats kind of the way it works now, sort of, more so in outlying areas.
on the other hand prior to arizona establishing the right to carry without permit needed this happened.
guy who had a ccw had a gun wedged between the front seats, driving through goofus land, i think chandler, gets pulled over. Was him and his wife. cop arrests wife who does not have ccw for weapons violation as gun was in ready access to her too. I solved the problem at the time as my wife has her own ccw now. Not needed in arizona now, but still good to have when buying firearms.
I'm not sure its a big deal. Like we keep saying here, when in contact with LEO just comply with them..if they feel better with you disarmed so be it, it will only be temporary.
I've always experienced ZERO problems with LEOs, when I let them know if I do or don't have firearms in my vehicle, right off the bat...
and do a lot of yes sir, no sir to their questions...
cooperate and don't show anything but respect...
never had a cop want to confiscate my firearms... or give me any harassment...
Thanks for the link, steve4102. So in summary, it really comes down to something somewhat similar to the thread a week or two ago.
But not totally.. in that case the police pulled the car over and talked to the occupants. It wasn't until the passenger become uncooperative that a frisk was made and the gun taken.
In this case no attempt was made to ascertain whether the clerk had a permit or not before the officer disarmed him. The clerk was working, so far less likely to be engaged in criminal activity than someone driving around in a car.
That difference could become very important if nationwide reciprocity is passed. It's going to fine that Illinois/New York/New Jersey has to recognize your concealed carry permits, but the cops are allowed to forcibly disarm you before even asking if you have a permit? I personally don't want to meet up with their finest and their methods of disarming suspects..
I recently got pulled over by the town of Jackson for not using a hands free phone device inside the city limits. First thing the officer asked was if I was carrying. I answered yes. He asked where. I told him right front pocket. He asked that I leave it there. I already had drivers license, insurance, and registration out for him when he came to the window. Kept my hands out where he could see them and was polite. Took my warning and went on about my business. Dealing with cops in these situations isn't rocket science. Even though I think the hands free law is ridiculous it doesn't do me any good to give the officer a ration of chit about it. That's what city councils are for.
I recently got pulled over by the town of Jackson for not using a hands free phone device inside the city limits. First thing the officer asked was if I was carrying. I answered yes. He asked where. I told him right front pocket. He asked that I leave it there. I already had drivers license, insurance, and registration out for him when he came to the window. Kept my hands out where he could see them and was polite. Took my warning and went on about my business. Dealing with cops in these situations isn't rocket science. Even though I think the hands free law is ridiculous it doesn't do me any good to give the officer a ration of chit about it. That's what city councils are for.
That's how interactions should go, I totally agree.
That difference could become very important if nationwide reciprocity is passed. It's going to fine that Illinois/New York/New Jersey has to recognize your concealed carry permits, but the cops are allowed to forcibly disarm you before even asking if you have a permit? I personally don't want to meet up with their finest and their methods of disarming suspects..
Especially if it means Tasing you preemptively (you know for officer safety)
Thanks for the link, steve4102. So in summary, it really comes down to something somewhat similar to the thread a week or two ago.
But not totally.. in that case the police pulled the car over and talked to the occupants. It wasn't until the passenger become uncooperative that a frisk was made and the gun taken.
In this case no attempt was made to ascertain whether the clerk had a permit or not before the officer disarmed him. The clerk was working, so far less likely to be engaged in criminal activity than someone driving around in a car.
That difference could become very important if nationwide reciprocity is passed. It's going to fine that Illinois/New York/New Jersey has to recognize your concealed carry permits, but the cops are allowed to forcibly disarm you before even asking if you have a permit? I personally don't want to meet up with their finest and their methods of disarming suspects..
The issue is that carrying concealed without a permit is illegal in that state. The cop saw a concealed weapon; PC of a crime in progress, which permitted the stop.
I recently got pulled over by the town of Jackson for not using a hands free phone device inside the city limits. First thing the officer asked was if I was carrying. I answered yes. He asked where. I told him right front pocket. He asked that I leave it there. I already had drivers license, insurance, and registration out for him when he came to the window. Kept my hands out where he could see them and was polite. Took my warning and went on about my business. Dealing with cops in these situations isn't rocket science. Even though I think the hands free law is ridiculous it doesn't do me any good to give the officer a ration of chit about it. That's what city councils are for.
That's how interactions should go, I totally agree.
+2
The issue is that carrying concealed without a permit is illegal in that state. The cop saw a concealed weapon; PC of a crime in progress, which permitted the stop.
Since it's illegal to drive without a license, is it okay to pull over any car since the act of driving is probable cause to believe the driver may be driving without a license? That's silly.
Carrying with a permit is legal. So the cop is allowed to disarm before asking if you have a permit? The cop had already told the defendent to keep his hands up and visible. Obviously the court upheld it as legal under Terry, the question is whether they should.
Is it okay for any cop to forcibly disarm a citizen with a firearm prior to checking for possession of a license? If grabbing from a waistband is okay, where's the stopping point?
The issue is that carrying concealed without a permit is illegal in that state. The cop saw a concealed weapon; PC of a crime in progress, which permitted the stop.
Clearly your way more versed in law then I do to your previous occupations which leads to my question.
In reading the appeal decision I surmised that all ccw was in fact illegal by letter of the law and that the ccw merely becomes an "admissible defense" to violation of the law as it's an permissible exemption to the statute.
If I'm interpreting it right, why would the state not amend the law to state that ccw is simply illegal in absense of a permit to do so. It just seems simpler to me that way.
I've shown my CHL every time I've been asked for my D L, which is what we are required to do in Tx. IF WE ARE CARRYING. Sometimes the cops ask me where my firearm is but usually they don't.
I've never been disarmed but it wouldn't bother me if they wanted to.
I'm not carrying to protect myself from cops.
Some of you sound as if YOU are.
It helps if you understand that your license is actually just an affirmative defense against prosecution for an activity which, on its face, is illegal.
I've shown my CHL every time I've been asked for my D L, which is what we are required to do in Tx. IF WE ARE CARRYING. Sometimes the cops ask me where my firearm is but usually they don't.
I've never been disarmed but it wouldn't bother me if they wanted to.
I'm not carrying to protect myself from cops.
Some of you sound as if YOU are.
It helps if you understand that your license is actually just an affirmative defense against prosecution for an activity which, on its face, is illegal.
Exactly this in jurisdictions where concealed carry is
verboten without a permit.
Well said!
calhoun: And which of hildabeasts Supreme Court nominees do you think would be MORE pro-Second Amendment than Judge Gorsuch?
Your specious (without merit!) attack on Gorsuch has fallen on my deaf ears!
You could try and make a mountain out of a mole hill if you want, I guess, but the rewards will be nil.
Sheesh.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
Since it's illegal to drive without a license, is it okay to pull over any car since the act of driving is probable cause to believe the driver may be driving without a license? That's silly.
The appeal decision of this case specifically talks about vehicles and licensing as a comparison brought about by the defendant. His argument was bullshit as stated in the appeal and yours is also.
As the judges properly stated, the act of driving without a license is a small percentage of drivers and there is no way for the officers to know who does and doesn't have a license thus they cannot blindly stop drivers for suspicion of DWLS.
In this care the officers were responding to a report of armed individuals, they physically saw the gun protruding from his pants and ccw in that state is ILLEGAL by statute. The ccw becomes an affirmative defense to violation of the law as stated by the appeal judges. The officers were not guessing if the defendant was armed as they physically saw the gun when the guy bent over and his shirt rode up.
Also he was hardly "forcibly" disarmed, as the appeal verdict also clearly stated that officer simply removed the gun from his pants as the defendant opened the door to walk through and his shirt again rode up exposing the gun.
So yes under Terry the officer suspecting a crime (again ccw is illegal in that states) is allowed to pat down, disarm and detain an individual for as little time as necessary while assertaining if a crime has been committed.
Why the big issue with an officer simply disarming someone during a contact? Are we against keeping our police officers safe as possible? If your legally carrying you should have nothing to hide and will get your gun back and be on your way shortly.
I'm curious why you are so against this when in this case it seems the officers used discretion and followed the law.
Since it's illegal to drive without a license, is it okay to pull over any car since the act of driving is probable cause to believe the driver may be driving without a license? That's silly.
The appeal decision of this case specifically talks about vehicles and licensing as a comparison brought about by the defendant. His argument was bullshit as stated in the appeal and yours is also.
As the judges properly stated, the act of driving without a license is a small percentage of drivers and there is no way for the officers to know who does and doesn't have a license thus they cannot blindly stop drivers for suspicion of DWLS.
In this care the officers were responding to a report of armed individuals, they physically saw the gun protruding from his pants and ccw in that state is ILLEGAL by statute. The ccw becomes an affirmative defense to violation of the law as stated by the appeal judges. The officers were not guessing if the defendant was armed as they physically saw the gun when the guy bent over and his shirt rode up.
Also he was hardly "forcibly" disarmed, as the appeal verdict also clearly stated that officer simply removed the gun from his pants as the defendant opened the door to walk through and his shirt again rode up exposing the gun.
So yes under Terry the officer suspecting a crime (again ccw is illegal in that states) is allowed to pat down, disarm and detain an individual for as little time as necessary while assertaining if a crime has been committed.
Why the big issue with an officer simply disarming someone during a contact? Are we against keeping our police officers safe as possible? If your legally carrying you should have nothing to hide and will get your gun back and be on your way shortly.
I'm curious why you are so against this when in this case it seems the officers used discretion and followed the law.
This.
In the state of Oregon when an LE stops a motorist for whatever reason and notifies dispatch and gives the license number of the vehicle and drivers license number, dispatch will inform the LE if the the driver has a valid concealed weapons permit along with outstanding warrants etc..
The appeal decision of this case specifically talks about vehicles and licensing as a comparison brought about by the defendant. His argument was bullshit as stated in the appeal and yours is also.
As the judges properly stated, the act of driving without a license is a small percentage of drivers and there is no way for the officers to know who does and doesn't have a license thus they cannot blindly stop drivers for suspicion of DWLS.
In this care the officers were responding to a report of armed individuals, they physically saw the gun protruding from his pants and ccw in that state is ILLEGAL by statute. The ccw becomes an affirmative defense to violation of the law as stated by the appeal judges. The officers were not guessing if the defendant was armed as they physically saw the gun when the guy bent over and his shirt rode up.
Also he was hardly "forcibly" disarmed, as the appeal verdict also clearly stated that officer simply removed the gun from his pants as the defendant opened the door to walk through and his shirt again rode up exposing the gun.
So yes under Terry the officer suspecting a crime (again ccw is illegal in that states) is allowed to pat down, disarm and detain an individual for as little time as necessary while assertaining if a crime has been committed.
Good reply, I appreciate it. So in this jurisdiction this is how the state allows LEO's to handle CCW. Okay, I don't understand anyone allowing that but I get it.
Now add national reciprocity into the mix. Now add bad actor states (NY/NJ/etc) allowing cops to engage and disarm any CCW's who have a gun print without first checking to see if they have a permit. Heck, Chicago PD is on record as saying they have no problem with cops shooting CC holders in their jurisdiction.
I can start throwing out examples of legal CCW's who have been shot down by cops during bad stops if you want a different example. Surrounded by multiple cops, some yelling "GET DOWN" and others yelling "DROP THE GUN" and then the guy gets killed when he tries to unholster and drop the gun.
Guy dead because the cops couldn't simply ask first if he had a permit.https://pjmedia.com/blog/gunned-down-in-vegas-what-really-happened-to-erik-scott/
The appeal decision of this case specifically talks about vehicles and licensing as a comparison brought about by the defendant. His argument was bullshit as stated in the appeal and yours is also.
As the judges properly stated, the act of driving without a license is a small percentage of drivers and there is no way for the officers to know who does and doesn't have a license thus they cannot blindly stop drivers for suspicion of DWLS.
In this care the officers were responding to a report of armed individuals, they physically saw the gun protruding from his pants and ccw in that state is ILLEGAL by statute. The ccw becomes an affirmative defense to violation of the law as stated by the appeal judges. The officers were not guessing if the defendant was armed as they physically saw the gun when the guy bent over and his shirt rode up.
Also he was hardly "forcibly" disarmed, as the appeal verdict also clearly stated that officer simply removed the gun from his pants as the defendant opened the door to walk through and his shirt again rode up exposing the gun.
So yes under Terry the officer suspecting a crime (again ccw is illegal in that states) is allowed to pat down, disarm and detain an individual for as little time as necessary while assertaining if a crime has been committed.
Good reply, I appreciate it. So in this jurisdiction this is how the state allows LEO's to handle CCW. Okay, I don't understand anyone allowing that but I get it.
Now add national reciprocity into the mix. Now add bad actor states (NY/NJ/etc) allowing cops to engage and disarm any CCW's who have a gun print without first checking to see if they have a permit. Heck, Chicago PD is on record as saying they have no problem with cops shooting CC holders in their jurisdiction.
I can start throwing out examples of legal CCW's who have been shot down by cops during bad stops if you want a different example. Surrounded by multiple cops, some yelling "GET DOWN" and others yelling "DROP THE GUN" and then the guy gets killed when he tries to unholster and drop the gun. Guy dead because the cops couldn't simply ask first if he had a permit.
https://pjmedia.com/blog/gunned-down-in-vegas-what-really-happened-to-erik-scott/ That's why national reciprocity needs to be handle by a SCOTUS ruling and not Congress, and why Constitutional Carry is the best alternative.
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.
Calhoun, do we one better. Find me ANY state with a statute banning concealed carry that states ccw is an affirmative defense to same law that doesn't allow an Leo to disarm an individual.
Hell is there even any state that has a law specifically barring an LEO from disarming a citizen during a Terry stop or while conducting an investigation?
I'm doubtful such exists.
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.
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.
Agreed. However, in that case the carrier was carrying illegally on several levels. No reason to get into lawful carry as it did not apply.
Calhoun, do we one better. Find me ANY state with a statute banning concealed carry that states ccw is an affirmative defense to same law that doesn't allow an Leo to disarm an individual.
Hell is there even any state that has a law specifically barring an LEO from disarming a citizen during a Terry stop or while conducting an investigation?
I'm doubtful such exists.
Not the point of the original article. Disarming suspects or even a lawful CCW is obviously within the parameters of a stop. The issue was that this decision didn't address any limits on the how the disarming could be done - this was a very, very minor forcible disarming. About as minor as can be. But it set legal precedent that forcible disarming of a detainee who may be a legal CCW holder is okay - without limits on the force that's allowed even when no resistance is shown.
It's one case, and not even a good one. It's just something to be aware of that he didn't take the opportunity to limit force used during peaceful stops with CCW holders.
It occurs to me perhaps this cop was using judgment when he forcibly disarmed this guy. Was the clerk covered in prison tats? Did the cop have prior knowledge of this man as a felon?
Law enforcement is a job I could not do. I give a great deal of credit to those individual who can.
Agreed. However, in that case the carrier was carrying illegally on several levels. No reason to get into lawful carry as it did not apply.
But the cops didn't know the carrier was illegal until after the forcible disarming.
As I've said... it is a bad case to talk about. But better to talk before a legal CCW is injured or shot than after.
It occurs to me perhaps this cop was using judgment when he forcibly disarmed this guy. Was the clerk covered in prison tats? Did the cop have prior knowledge of this man as a felon?
Law enforcement is a job I could not do. I give a great deal of credit to those individual who can.
Prison tats were found after he was disarmed.
Heck, if I was a cop and had a reluctant armed guy in front of me I'd be tempted to snatch the gun from his waistband when he was faced away from me also. Would be fine with me if the decision had stated that level of force was acceptable.
The problem is the decision didn't say what level of force was acceptable. Snatching the gun is good. Is tackling the suspect? Is tasing? Do any cops still use billy clubs?
Is drawing and covering him okay?
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.
You've had a rough couple years.
Here's to hoping you get something right in 2017.
Clark
In case anybody is wondering who the authors of this article are:
Lawrence D. Pratt - Executive Director of Gun Owners of America
Willam J. Olson - Virginia lawyer (we won't hold that totally against him), of lawandfreedom.com
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.
![[Linked Image]](https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/TRESPASS-512x600.png)
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.
Not in Iowa.
I'm not sure its a big deal. Like we keep saying here, when in contact with LEO just comply with them..if they feel better with you disarmed so be it, it will only be temporary.
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.
I'm not sure its a big deal. Like we keep saying here, when in contact with LEO just comply with them..if they feel better with you disarmed so be it, it will only be temporary.
+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.
Terry stop; been Constitutionally valid for a long damned time.
Are some folks so daft as to think that the cop should stop someone and NOT check for weapons in the course of the stop? Holy f'k...
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.
Terry stop; been Constitutionally valid for a long damned time.
Are some folks so daft as to think that the cop should stop someone and NOT check for weapons in the course of the stop? Holy f'k...
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!
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!
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 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 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.
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!
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!
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!
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.
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!
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!
Supporting a magazine ban -
I worked at a gun store in the late 70s early 80s when these type of rifles were beginning to get popular. We sold them. I remember the owner telling me that these rifles were going to pose a problem for us (gun owners). I never got into the whole tactical firearms thing. My interest has been in sporting rifles and double shotguns. I do have a couple revolvers. I always figured if the poo hit the fan and I ever needed a real assault weapon, I would know how to get one and I certainly didn't need one to protect my home. Whenever I'm at the range and hear someone rattle off a magazine as fast as they can pull the trigger, I just shake my head. I prefer precision shooting, deliberate and accurate. But to each his own, but I'm getting tired of defending why gun owners need high capacity semi-auto rifles. I would support a magazine capacity restriction rather than an outright ban on semi-auto rifles with some cosmetic design features deemed to be dangerous. I really do cringe when I see all the tactical gear and advertising. I much prefer firearms to be marketed for hunting and target shooting, you know innocent and wholesome activities. It's better for PR.
I do believe that at some point they will be banned across the country, much like they are in NY State. And probably just like in NY State, the compliance rate will be very low (approx. 5% in NY) making a whole lot of instant outlaws.
Worried about losing Remington 1100s because of assault weapons, a clear insinuation that one is more worthy than the other -
I know very well that the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting rifles. But I also understand that a citizenry that appears to be gearing up for a war is scary to the majority of the citizens and to the government. If needed, I could take any of my sporting firearms and defend myself or use them to get a real assault rifle. It's how the partisans in France ended up with German submachine guns. We are losing the PR war for the 2nd Amendment and I think there is some blame to be pointed in our direction. When asked by non-gun owners why we need high capacity "assault weapons" they don't want to hear that we are gearing up for what is in essence a civil war. That's not comforting. It's just a matter of time before all semi-autos are banned (as they were in Australia) and we won't have our Rem 1100 shotguns because some felt it necessary to gear up for war.
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) -
Clinton57m... You support a magazine restriction? Why?
I would support a magazine restriction over an outright ban on "assault weapons" (I use the term as it is used in the general media, knowing full well that they aren't) rather than a ban on certain particular rifle platforms or on some defined cosmetic features such as the pistol grip. The ability to shoot 20 or 30 people without reloading is part of what allows so many victims to these mass shooting. Smaller mag capacity would require a shooter bent on mayhem to have to stop and reload allowing more time for people to escape and having to carry a very large quantity of 5 shot mags would be a logistic problem. Again, if we ever needed large magazines, it would be fairly easy to get them. The thing that makes these 5.56 mm rifle seem so "powerful" and objectionable to many people is their high-capacity. If it's either give up on high-capacity mags or the rifles themselves - what would you choose?
More gems on bans -
Look, is it easier to get, hide, fabricate etc a high capacity magazine or an AR rifle if/when banned? I would rather the gov't ban the magazine then the rifle. I didn't say you had to comply. Let them have the mag ban and think they've accomplished something. You all keep them, hide them etc. Something is going to happen eventually and more and more politicians are thinking something needs to be done. If the mag are banned, you can still have your AR and practice with it. If the ARs are banned, you can keep them in your attic or bury them in the ground but if you go pop, pop, pop, etc etc. etc with a banned AR you will have someone calling the cops on you to take it away. You have to think about it rather then knee-jerk react. Eventually somethings going to give. What would you rather have made illegal, the AR-15 or a 30 round mag? If you let the gun ignorant politicians make that decision for you, you won't like it.
Oh, this is just CLASSIC leftist, liberalist puke; blaming the firearms for mass shootings -
I understand everything you are all saying and I wish things could stay the way they are, but we are eventually going to face some very stiff and restrictive gun control laws/regs to address the problem of these mass shootings and my guess is that it will happen sooner rather than later. We already have these laws in place here in NY where we can no longer purchase these rifles, existing ones were required to be registered and where the magazines were also banned. I would bet that the owner of an unregistered and now illegal AR would prefer to have just had the high capacity mags banned so that they could still use/shoot their ARs and AKs rather then hide them away for someday.
If you really want to keep your ARs and AKs, vote Libertarian, where protecting our 2nd Amendment rights is part of their party platform.
When THIS happens, you cannot ever claim any defense of the 2A; he was an Obama voter -
Cooper57, you need to STFU. Let me explain what I mean by that, because it's a rude thing to say, and I actually don't mean STFU here. Say what you want here and have a debate, cool by me.
But listen, you have internally CRUMBLED on this issue; you are in full surrender mode. What the hell? Why?
So I am asking you to STFU on this issue in your general day to day life. If you cannot be fully supportive of the 2nd, then just be quiet on it. Your attitude on it is toxic and corrosive. Your approach leads to defeat.
And learn up on Heller and what it means. The game has changed, at least until the SCOTUS reversed itself... which, on such a major and recently-decided issue, would be unprecedented (I think).
Caring more about public opinion and PR than the actual 2A -
I wont call you names, but the points you brought up can't be discussed in an intelligent manner because they are the product of emotional over reaction. We do not need to convince non gun owners of anything. They will not change their unfounded opinions of us either way.If it looks to them as if we are gearing up for war, so be it, because I fear that we are....
The ' way to keep our firearms' is simple. Civil Disobedience and non-compliance with idiotic laws like mag restrictions. As George stated, we need to get the mindset of not budging another inch.
The underlying reasons for gun control by the liberals remain the same, to disarm and subjugate.
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]
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!
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.
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!
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???
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.
Maybe you missed that "forcibly disarmed" part in the story above?
That means any cop has the right to forcibly disarm any citizen before they even ask if you have a license. You good with that?
I did miss that part.....sorry.
Ive had three stops while carrying, in each case I handed over my CWP along with my drivers license, and luckily got three courteous and clear thinking officers who considered it a non-issue...once they knew.
Again strict compliance may avoid the "forcibly" part for you.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
As an aside; Has anyone seen the statistics that show cops are more likely to commit crimes than CC permit holders?
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/co...lice-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/Therefore, it is more reasonable for a CC holder to fear a cop than a cop to fear a CC holder.
"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.
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
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.
"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??
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
ts obvious you have never read Terry, nor do you understand the term "totality of the situation"
Terry authorizes the stop and frisk, of individuals reasonably believed to be armed and dangerous. reasonable suspicion is a much lower legal standard. the fact that the officer saw the gun, satisfies the RS part of terry, when taken with the totality of the situation. ie, suspect began to become agitated when asked to step outside and speak with officers. the RS of a crime under commission is satisfied by NM statute stating it is illegal to possess a concealed deadly weapon.
again RS is different that having PC to arrest.
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.
Yeah...What a concept! If the basic tenants of the constitution were followed(as is required by the friggin document) there would be no " need " for all these ridiculous albeit profitable laws like ccw, terry searches, gun laws, vehicle registration, hate crimes, progressive tax code....,on and on ad nauseam.
But, as I stated earlier, as long as we keep supporting them, we get what we reap.
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.
ts obvious you have never read Terry, nor do you understand the term "totality of the situation"
Terry authorizes the stop and frisk, of individuals reasonably believed to be armed and dangerous. reasonable suspicion is a much lower legal standard. the fact that the officer saw the gun, satisfies the RS part of terry, when taken with the totality of the situation. ie, suspect began to become agitated when asked to step outside and speak with officers. the RS of a crime under commission is satisfied by NM statute stating it is illegal to possess a concealed deadly weapon.
again RS is different that having PC to arrest.
Understanding does not have to result in agreement. I understand that it is a much lower standard, but still it has to be (or should be) more than just an LEO's assumption. The LEO still should be able to verbalize the crime that he thinks is being committed or is about to be committed. If the clerk had been carrying, and, brandishing, or threatening, or acting aggressively then I could understand the LEO actions. But if the clerk was just bending over to get the LEO a package of doughnuts when the CC was noticed, then that would, IMO, not be reasonable to assume a crime is about to be committed. How's that for understanding the totality of the situation.
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.
ts obvious you have never read Terry, nor do you understand the term "totality of the situation"
Terry authorizes the stop and frisk, of individuals reasonably believed to be armed and dangerous. reasonable suspicion is a much lower legal standard. the fact that the officer saw the gun, satisfies the RS part of terry, when taken with the totality of the situation. ie, suspect began to become agitated when asked to step outside and speak with officers. the RS of a crime under commission is satisfied by NM statute stating it is illegal to possess a concealed deadly weapon.
again RS is different that having PC to arrest.
Understanding does not have to result in agreement. I understand that it is a much lower standard, but still it has to be (or should be) more than just an LEO's assumption. The LEO still should be able to verbalize the crime that he thinks is being committed or is about to be committed. If the clerk had been carrying, and, brandishing, or threatening, or acting aggressively then I could understand the LEO actions. But if the clerk was just bending over to get the LEO a package of doughnuts when the CC was noticed, then that would, IMO, not be reasonable to assume a crime is about to be committed. How's that for understanding the totality of the situation.
read the above link
Here is something to think about. My longest friend is a Forest Ranger (which is an armed, LEO position here in NY). While patrolling State land, mostly by himself, without back-up being readily available, he very frequently comes across hunters, hikers, campers etc that are armed (both CC and OC). He doesn't disarm every person, or handcuff or assume that they are all criminals, or break out in a cold sweat or sheet himself. (Can you imagine such a thing in NY?) But some cops hear the word gun and will shoot a guy going for his wallet when asked to produce his driver's license, or instantly shoot some kid playing with a toy. Some people just don't have what it takes to be a cop. They're too nervous and jerky.
Here is something to think about. My longest friend is a Forest Ranger (which is an armed, LEO position here in NY). While patrolling State land, mostly by himself, without back-up being readily available, he very frequently comes across hunters, hikers, campers etc that are armed (both CC and OC). He doesn't disarm every person, or handcuff or assume that they are all criminals, or break out in a cold sweat or [bleep] himself. (Can you imagine such a thing in NY?) But some cops hear the word gun and will shoot a guy going for his wallet when asked to produce his driver's license, or instantly shoot some kid playing with a toy. Some people just don't have what it takes to be a cop. They're too nervous and jerky.
you're seriously trying to equate a forest ranger in NY with a city cop dispatched to a call for service of "armed men" in armed high crime area of Albuquerque New Mexico?
"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.
TRH . . . I'm assuming the cop was white and your uncle is/was a white man?
I'm ok with everything except the LEO disarming the clerk prior to finding out that he didn't have a permit and was a felon. If disarming a citizen for the police's safety is ok, then we should be allowed to disarm the police for our safety. Prior to learning the clerk did not have a permit and was a felon, there was, IMO, no reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed, unless it's a crime to show a co-worker your gun in NM. Once it was ascertained that didn't have a permit, that's when he should have been when he was disarmed.
Here is something to think about. My longest friend is a Forest Ranger (which is an armed, LEO position here in NY). While patrolling State land, mostly by himself, without back-up being readily available, he very frequently comes across hunters, hikers, campers etc that are armed (both CC and OC). He doesn't disarm every person, or handcuff or assume that they are all criminals, or break out in a cold sweat or [bleep] himself. (Can you imagine such a thing in NY?) But some cops hear the word gun and will shoot a guy going for his wallet when asked to produce his driver's license, or instantly shoot some kid playing with a toy. Some people just don't have what it takes to be a cop. They're too nervous and jerky.
you're seriously trying to equate a forest ranger in NY with a city cop dispatched to a call for service of "armed men" in armed high crime area of Albuquerque New Mexico?
Yup, we had a Conservation Officer killed on duty this year. If a Cop is afraid of his job, he should do something else.
Here is something to think about. My longest friend is a Forest Ranger (which is an armed, LEO position here in NY). While patrolling State land, mostly by himself, without back-up being readily available, he very frequently comes across hunters, hikers, campers etc that are armed (both CC and OC). He doesn't disarm every person, or handcuff or assume that they are all criminals, or break out in a cold sweat or [bleep] himself. (Can you imagine such a thing in NY?) But some cops hear the word gun and will shoot a guy going for his wallet when asked to produce his driver's license, or instantly shoot some kid playing with a toy. Some people just don't have what it takes to be a cop. They're too nervous and jerky.
you're seriously trying to equate a forest ranger in NY with a city cop dispatched to a call for service of "armed men" in armed high crime area of Albuquerque New Mexico?
Yup, we had a Conservation Officer killed on duty this year. If a Cop is afraid of doing his job, he should do something else.
One KIA this year. Wow. That sucks, but it ain't NM.
There's a difference between being afraid, and being stupidly naive.
Read the link that has been provided, several times. Then, read Terry v Ohio.
Here's a story from when I was employed as a hazardous waste inspector. I had an inspection in a crime-ridden area of Newburgh (a murder rate higher than NYC). While inspecting this small company, the guy looking for some paperwork opened a desk drawer and inside I recognized a Ruger 10/22 that had the barrel and stock illegally cut down to pistol size. I pretended I didn't see it and later called the Newburgh PD to report the illegal gun. I was told, "In that part of the city, you would be crazy not to have a gun." Upon seeing that illegal gun, I didn't confiscate it, out of fear for my safety, or run out of the place screaming. Hell, that gun was probably the safest thing I encountered in that sheet hole. Many violations were cited.
I have no issue with a LEO disarming me during a peaceful encounter, so long as he doesn't do so aggressively.
Here's a story from when I was employed as hazardous waste inspector. I had an inspection in a crime-ridden area of Newburgh (a murder rate higher than NYC). While inspecting this small company, the guy looking for some paperwork opened a desk drawer and inside I recognized a Ruger 10/22 that had the barrel and stock illegally cut down to pistol size. I pretended I didn't see it and later called the Newburgh PD to report the illegal gun. I was told, "In that part of the city, you would be crazy not to have a gun." Upon seeing that illegal gun, I didn't confiscate it, out of fear for my safety, or run out of the place screaming. Hell, that gun was probably the safest thing I encountered in that sheet hole. Many violations were cited.
Well, hurray. That has ... hmmm... exactly nothing to do with anything, and certainly not the 4A or the law. Read the link provided. Read Terry v Ohio.
Of course, you MAY have inadvertently stumbled upon a concept of "totality of circumstances" as it relates to a cop in NM dealing with a felon working in a low-end convenience store in a schithole part of town, but you would not catch on even if we drew you a picture.
Here's a story from when I was employed as hazardous waste inspector. I had an inspection in a crime-ridden area of Newburgh (a murder rate higher than NYC). While inspecting this small company, the guy looking for some paperwork opened a desk drawer and inside I recognized a Ruger 10/22 that had the barrel and stock illegally cut down to pistol size. I pretended I didn't see it and later called the Newburgh PD to report the illegal gun. I was told, "In that part of the city, you would be crazy not to have a gun." Upon seeing that illegal gun, I didn't confiscate it, out of fear for my safety, or run out of the place screaming. Hell, that gun was probably the safest thing I encountered in that sheet hole. Many violations were cited.
congrats. that story has absoluteky no corrolation to the OP.
INFACT had you "confidcated it. you yourself would have committed multiple felonies
Here's a story from when I was employed as a hazardous waste inspector. I had an inspection in a crime-ridden area of Newburgh (a murder rate higher than NYC). While inspecting this small company, the guy looking for some paperwork opened a desk drawer and inside I recognized a Ruger 10/22 that had the barrel and stock illegally cut down to pistol size. I pretended I didn't see it and later called the Newburgh PD to report the illegal gun. I was told, "In that part of the city, you would be crazy not to have a gun." Upon seeing that illegal gun, I didn't confiscate it, out of fear for my safety, or run out of the place screaming. Hell, that gun was probably the safest thing I encountered in that sheet hole. Many violations were cited.
You called the cops, what an ass hole you are.
Here's a story from when I was employed as a hazardous waste inspector. I had an inspection in a crime-ridden area of Newburgh (a murder rate higher than NYC). While inspecting this small company, the guy looking for some paperwork opened a desk drawer and inside I recognized a Ruger 10/22 that had the barrel and stock illegally cut down to pistol size. I pretended I didn't see it and later called the Newburgh PD to report the illegal gun. I was told, "In that part of the city, you would be crazy not to have a gun." Upon seeing that illegal gun, I didn't confiscate it, out of fear for my safety, or run out of the place screaming. Hell, that gun was probably the safest thing I encountered in that sheet hole. Many violations were cited.
You called the cops, what an ass hole you are.
Dude, it was an original Ruger Charger ... but without the bipod (as usual).
"
Here's a story from when I was employed as a hazardous waste inspector. I had an inspection in a crime-ridden area of Newburgh (a murder rate higher than NYC). While inspecting this small company, the guy looking for some paperwork opened a desk drawer and inside I recognized a Ruger 10/22 that had the barrel and stock illegally cut down to pistol size. I pretended I didn't see it and later called the Newburgh PD to report the illegal gun. I was told, "In that part of the city, you would be crazy not to have a gun." Upon seeing that illegal gun, I didn't confiscate it, out of fear for my safety, or run out of the place screaming. Hell, that gun was probably the safest thing I encountered in that sheet hole. Many violations were cited.
You called the cops, what an ass hole you are.
to come confiscate the gun
he really is the Second Ammendments friend.
Here's a story from when I was employed as hazardous waste inspector. I had an inspection in a crime-ridden area of Newburgh (a murder rate higher than NYC). While inspecting this small company, the guy looking for some paperwork opened a desk drawer and inside I recognized a Ruger 10/22 that had the barrel and stock illegally cut down to pistol size. I pretended I didn't see it and later called the Newburgh PD to report the illegal gun. I was told, "In that part of the city, you would be crazy not to have a gun." Upon seeing that illegal gun, I didn't confiscate it, out of fear for my safety, or run out of the place screaming. Hell, that gun was probably the safest thing I encountered in that sheet hole. Many violations were cited.
Well, hurray. That has ... hmmm... exactly nothing to do with anything, and certainly not the 4A or the law. Read the link provided. Read Terry v Ohio.
Of course, you MAY have inadvertently stumbled upon a concept of "totality of circumstances" as it relates to a cop in NM dealing with a felon working in a low-end convenience store in a schithole part of town, but you would not catch on even if we drew you a picture.
It has to do with encountering potentially dangerous situations and how one chooses to handle that situation. Just because a job has dangers doesn't mean another's rights should be infringed.
The rest of that story is that about 10 years after that encounter with the guy with the illegal gun in his desk, he was at his second home in Jamaica, lounging around his pool, when two guys walked up to him and shot him dead and walked away. The killers were never caught and it was assumed to be a mob hit.
http://www.recordonline.com/article/20100209/BIZ/2090334ps. Regarding the 4th Amendment: I had places refuse me entry without having a search warrant. I didn't freak out over someone exercising their Constitutional Rights, I would just calmly inform them that they had that right but that I would seek a search warrant, come back with a Conservation Officer and any violations would be handled criminally rather than administratively. They would then always grant me access.
Here's a story from when I was employed as hazardous waste inspector. I had an inspection in a crime-ridden area of Newburgh (a murder rate higher than NYC). While inspecting this small company, the guy looking for some paperwork opened a desk drawer and inside I recognized a Ruger 10/22 that had the barrel and stock illegally cut down to pistol size. I pretended I didn't see it and later called the Newburgh PD to report the illegal gun. I was told, "In that part of the city, you would be crazy not to have a gun." Upon seeing that illegal gun, I didn't confiscate it, out of fear for my safety, or run out of the place screaming. Hell, that gun was probably the safest thing I encountered in that sheet hole. Many violations were cited.
Well, hurray. That has ... hmmm... exactly nothing to do with anything, and certainly not the 4A or the law. Read the link provided. Read Terry v Ohio.
Of course, you MAY have inadvertently stumbled upon a concept of "totality of circumstances" as it relates to a cop in NM dealing with a felon working in a low-end convenience store in a schithole part of town, but you would not catch on even if we drew you a picture.
It has to do with encountering potentially dangerous situations and how one chooses to handle that situation. Just because a job has dangers doesn't mean another's rights should be infringed.
The rest of that story is that about 10 years after that encounter with the guy with the illegal gun in his desk, he was at his second home in Jamaica, lounging around his pool, when two guys walked up to him and shot him dead and walked away. The killers were never caught and it was assumed to be a mob hit.
Was it your job to confiscate firearms, stop criminal activity, and arrest criminals? No? Then it has no bearing.
Jamaica is not the US. Again, irrelevant.
Read the link provided. Read Terry v Ohio.
Here's a story from when I was employed as hazardous waste inspector. I had an inspection in a crime-ridden area of Newburgh (a murder rate higher than NYC). While inspecting this small company, the guy looking for some paperwork opened a desk drawer and inside I recognized a Ruger 10/22 that had the barrel and stock illegally cut down to pistol size. I pretended I didn't see it and later called the Newburgh PD to report the illegal gun. I was told, "In that part of the city, you would be crazy not to have a gun." Upon seeing that illegal gun, I didn't confiscate it, out of fear for my safety, or run out of the place screaming. Hell, that gun was probably the safest thing I encountered in that sheet hole. Many violations were cited.
Well, hurray. That has ... hmmm... exactly nothing to do with anything, and certainly not the 4A or the law. Read the link provided. Read Terry v Ohio.
Of course, you MAY have inadvertently stumbled upon a concept of "totality of circumstances" as it relates to a cop in NM dealing with a felon working in a low-end convenience store in a schithole part of town, but you would not catch on even if we drew you a picture.
It has to do with encountering potentially dangerous situations and how one chooses to handle that situation. Just because a job has dangers doesn't mean another's rights should be infringed.
The rest of that story is that about 10 years after that encounter with the guy with the illegal gun in his desk, he was at his second home in Jamaica, lounging around his pool, when two guys walked up to him and shot him dead and walked away. The killers were never caught and it was assumed to be a mob hit.
The suspect in the OP had no right to possess a firearm, there fore his rights were not violated, neither his 2a (since he legally forfeited them once convicted of a previous felony) nor his 4a that has been pointed out why and which cases support the constitutionality of temporary seizures, to which, thus far you have obviously failed to read the provided link
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?
Like it or not the answer to your question is a resounding YES that is all the officer needed.
The officers were called to the store on a report of 2 individuals handling weapons inside a convenience store. Upon arrival the police witnessed the individual bend over exposing a gun in his pants.
If you read the case or the appeal you would already know that concealed carry of a weapon is expressly ILLEGAL by the state statute. Possession of a ccw permit doesn't change the law, its only an admissible and affirmitative defense to noncompliance.
This same exemption holds true in most states with a CCW law.
So yes dumbass witnessing the guy carrying a concealed gun absolutely is enough to detain and disarm him under Terry laws and the 4th Amendment. Had you bothered to read the appeals result you would know that.
The LEO still should be able to verbalize the crime that he thinks is being committed or is about to be committed. If the clerk had been carrying, and, brandishing, or threatening, or acting aggressively then I could understand the LEO actions.
Jesus Christ read the link before talking out of your ass.
1. The LEO's did verbalized the crime they felt was being committed (carrying concealed which is illegal in that state).
2. The clerk and his jackhole buddy did brandish their weapons. The police didn't wander into the store for no reason, they were there re: a 911 call of 2 guys playing with Guns.
3. When Leo entered the suspect was bent over stocking shelves and they personally witnessed the weapon (again ccw is illegal in that state) so they knew he was armed.
4. As the suspect pushed the door open to exit his shirt again rose up uncovering the gun at which time the officer simply grabbed it.
For the last time CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON IS ILLEGAL IN NEW MEXICO!
All legal under Terry and the 4th amendment. Feel free to post more bullshit about things you have no idea about.....
Why does everyone assume I didn't read the decision. I read it, I just don't agree with it.
In NY and CT "assault weapons" are illegal to buy or sell and to possess unless they were previously purchased and registered, and, magazine capacity are restricted to 10 rounds max. The SAFE Act was upheld in a lower court ruling and the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case. So, if you are implying court decisions are gospel, correct, and one can't disagree with them, then you all should embrace the "fact" (in quotes because I don't believe that the following is a fact or correct) that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect "assault weapons" and large cap magazines.
I think the courts got both decision's wrong. Get it.
Why does everyone assume I didn't read the decision. I read it, I just don't agree with it.
In NY and CT "assault weapons" are illegal to buy or sell and to possess unless they were previously purchased and registered, and, magazine capacity are restricted to 10 rounds max. The SAFE Act was upheld in a lower court ruling and the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case. So, if you are implying court decisions are gospel, correct, and one can't disagree with them, then you all should embrace the "fact" (in quotes because I don't believe that the following is a fact or correct) that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect "assault weapons" and large cap magazines.
I think the courts got both decision's wrong. Get it.
If you read, and understood, the case you'd not be making so many irrelevant comparisons or overlooking the "totality of the circumstances".
Since the 2A cases on those are NOT settled law (I.e., no SCOTUS rulings and certainly no well established precedent), there is no comparison between them and the 4A "Terry" line of case law.
Of course, you'll never "get" that, either.
TRH . . . I'm assuming the cop was white and your uncle is/was a white man?
Of course.
Dude, it was an original Ruger Charger ... but without the bipod (as usual).
![[Linked Image]](http://mazys.com/images/ruger%20charger.jpg)
he really is the Second Ammendments friend.
I thought that was hypocritical of him, too, but I guess he could have changed his views since then.
Why does everyone assume I didn't read the decision. I read it, I just don't agree with it.
In NY and CT "assault weapons" are illegal to buy or sell and to possess unless they were previously purchased and registered, and, magazine capacity are restricted to 10 rounds max. The SAFE Act was upheld in a lower court ruling and the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case. So, if you are implying court decisions are gospel, correct, and one can't disagree with them, then you all should embrace the "fact" (in quotes because I don't believe that the following is a fact or correct) that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect "assault weapons" and large cap magazines.
I think the courts got both decision's wrong. Get it.
we assume you didn't read it because you continue to ask questions that were clearly laid out with both answers and explanations of how those answers came about. we assume you didn't read it because you continue to bring up 2a arguments that are non existance in regards to the OP case, especially when it clearly states the 2a was not in question during this incident
"For the last time CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON IS ILLEGAL IN NEW MEXICO!"
Except if one has a CC permit (I really don't care how it is worded, if he had a CC permit there would be no crime and the LEO did not know that he did not have a CC when he seized the firearm).
As for brandishing, it is usually more than just showing an interested person your firearm. If that was the case I've committed brandishing thousands of times. While laws may very from State to State and I could not find NM's definition of brandishing, I did find this:
"{Very generally, however, for an operating definition “brandishing” means to display, show, wave, or exhibit the firearm in a manner which another person might find threatening. You can see how widely and differently this can be subjectively interpreted by different “reasonable” individuals and entities}".
Usually brandishing implies or requires it to be displayed in some level of a threatening manner.
"For the last time CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON IS ILLEGAL IN NEW MEXICO!"
Except if one has a CC permit (I really don't care how it is worded, if he had a CC permit there would be no crime and the LEO did not know that he did not have a CC when he seized the firearm).
As for brandishing, it is usually more than just showing an interested person your firearm. If that was the case I've committed brandishing thousands of times. While laws may very from State to State and I could not find NM's definition of brandishing, I did find this:
"{Very generally, however, for an operating definition “brandishing” means to display, show, wave, or exhibit the firearm in a manner which another person might find threatening. You can see how widely and differently this can be subjectively interpreted by different “reasonable” individuals and entities}".
Usually brandishing implies or requires it to be displayed in some level of a threatening manner.
so in your mind it's perfectly normal for two guys to be holding guns in a convince store?
Dude, it was an original Ruger Charger ... but without the bipod (as usual).
Uh, Dude, I have a 10/22 rifle and know the difference between a Charger and a cut-down rifle. Dude! Most people don't wrap duct tape around the pistol grip area of a Charger. Besides, the Charger was introduced in 2008 and the incident happened in the mid-90s. Dude.
Dude, it was an original Ruger Charger ... but without the bipod (as usual).
Uh, Dude, I have a 10/22 rifle and know the difference between a Charger and a cut-down rifle. Dude! Most people don't wrap duct tape around the pistol grip area of a Charger. Besides, the Charger was introduced in 2008 and the incident happened in the mid-90s. Dude.
Whoosh, right over your head. It was a reference to something unrelated to this thread; you don't and won't get it.
Uh, Dude, I have a 10/22 rifle and know the difference between a Charger and a cut-down rifle. Dude! Most people don't wrap duct tape around the pistol grip area of a Charger. Besides, the Charger was introduced in 2008 and the incident happened in the mid-90s. Dude.
I believed you. I just wanted to show the Charger since it was mentioned. Why'd you call the cops on the guy for having a gun that violated an
unconstitutional law, though?
Uh, Dude, I have a 10/22 rifle and know the difference between a Charger and a cut-down rifle. Dude! Most people don't wrap duct tape around the pistol grip area of a Charger. Besides, the Charger was introduced in 2008 and the incident happened in the mid-90s. Dude.
I believed you. I just wanted to show the Charger since it was mentioned. Why'd you call the cops on the guy for having a gun that violated an
unconstitutional law, though?
He's going to be WAY to confused to realize that he's hoisted on his own petard. Well played.
"For the last time CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON IS ILLEGAL IN NEW MEXICO!"
Except if one has a CC permit (I really don't care how it is worded, if he had a CC permit there would be no crime and the LEO did not know that he did not have a CC when he seized the firearm).
As for brandishing, it is usually more than just showing an interested person your firearm. If that was the case I've committed brandishing thousands of times. While laws may very from State to State and I could not find NM's definition of brandishing, I did find this:
"{Very generally, however, for an operating definition “brandishing” means to display, show, wave, or exhibit the firearm in a manner which another person might find threatening. You can see how widely and differently this can be subjectively interpreted by different “reasonable” individuals and entities}".
Usually brandishing implies or requires it to be displayed in some level of a threatening manner.
Do you understand that under NM LAW having a concealed weapons permit is merely an affirmative defense to the crime, the same as carrying in one's owned property or vehicle, thus the mere observation of the concealed gun was REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A CRIME. upon asserts in ingredients that the defendant did not have a permit, nor was it his property, it became PROBABLE CAUSE for an arrest...is it sinking in yet?
"For the last time CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON IS ILLEGAL IN NEW MEXICO!"
Except if one has a CC permit (I really don't care how it is worded, if he had a CC permit there would be no crime and the LEO did not know that he did not have a CC when he seized the firearm).
As for brandishing, it is usually more than just showing an interested person your firearm. If that was the case I've committed brandishing thousands of times. While laws may very from State to State and I could not find NM's definition of brandishing, I did find this:
"{Very generally, however, for an operating definition “brandishing” means to display, show, wave, or exhibit the firearm in a manner which another person might find threatening. You can see how widely and differently this can be subjectively interpreted by different “reasonable” individuals and entities}".
Usually brandishing implies or requires it to be displayed in some level of a threatening manner.
Do you understand that under NM LAW having a concealed weapons permit is merely an affirmative defense to the crime, the same as carrying in one's owned property or vehicle, thus the mere observation of the concealed gun was REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A CRIME. upon asserts in ingredients that the defendant did not have a permit, nor was it his property, it became PROBABLE CAUSE for an arrest...is it sinking in yet?
You know, those points you just made and that have been made several times before are rather readily apparent to anyone who actually read - and understood - the case in the link provided many times over.
Which is part of what is making this thread so damned hilarious at this point.
"For the last time CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON IS ILLEGAL IN NEW MEXICO!"
Except if one has a CC permit (I really don't care how it is worded, if he had a CC permit there would be no crime and the LEO did not know that he did not have a CC when he seized the firearm).
As for brandishing, it is usually more than just showing an interested person your firearm. If that was the case I've committed brandishing thousands of times. While laws may very from State to State and I could not find NM's definition of brandishing, I did find this:
"{Very generally, however, for an operating definition “brandishing” means to display, show, wave, or exhibit the firearm in a manner which another person might find threatening. You can see how widely and differently this can be subjectively interpreted by different “reasonable” individuals and entities}".
Usually brandishing implies or requires it to be displayed in some level of a threatening manner.
so in your mind it's perfectly normal for two guys to be holding guns in a convince store?
These days I have no fuggin' idea
what is considered normal anymore. I had a classmate who was given permission to bring a 1851 .36 cal. revolver to high school to show our history class studying the civil war what type of firearms were used. No one raised an eye then, now, he and the teacher would be arrested. Where I live, in rural NY, a couple store clerks showing each other their CC pistols wouldn't raise my eyebrows at all, so long as they were not pointing it at me. I can't speak for other people though, but in my mind, yup, perfectly normal. Last year I saw 3 teen-aged boys walking down the streets through the next town over with uncased rifles. I thought, "They're going hunting."
Uh, Dude, I have a 10/22 rifle and know the difference between a Charger and a cut-down rifle. Dude! Most people don't wrap duct tape around the pistol grip area of a Charger. Besides, the Charger was introduced in 2008 and the incident happened in the mid-90s. Dude.
I believed you. I just wanted to show the Charger since it was mentioned. Why'd you call the cops on the guy for having a gun that violated an
unconstitutional law, though?
As a public official on official business, if it became known that I had seen it and knew it was illegal and didn't do anything about it, it could have had consequences. Besides, this was not a good guy, hence, him being rubbed out.
These days I have no fuggin' idea what is considered normal anymore. I had a classmate who was given permission to bring a 1851 .36 cal. revolver to high school to show our history class studying the civil war what type of firearms were used. No one raised an eye then, now, he and the teacher would be arrested. Where I live, in rural NY, a couple store clerks showing each other their CC pistols wouldn't raise my eyebrows at all, so long as they were not pointing it at me. I can't speak for other people though, but in my mind, yup, perfectly normal. Last year I saw 3 teen-aged boys walking down the streets through the next town over with uncased rifles. I thought, "They're going hunting."
Buy a clue.
Dave
As a public official on official business, if it became known that I had seen it and knew it was illegal and didn't do anything about it, it could have had consequences. Besides, this was not a good guy, hence, him being rubbed out.
Busy body.
Dave
"For the last time CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON IS ILLEGAL IN NEW MEXICO!"
Except if one has a CC permit (I really don't care how it is worded, if he had a CC permit there would be no crime and the LEO did not know that he did not have a CC when he seized the firearm).
As for brandishing, it is usually more than just showing an interested person your firearm. If that was the case I've committed brandishing thousands of times. While laws may very from State to State and I could not find NM's definition of brandishing, I did find this:
"{Very generally, however, for an operating definition “brandishing” means to display, show, wave, or exhibit the firearm in a manner which another person might find threatening. You can see how widely and differently this can be subjectively interpreted by different “reasonable” individuals and entities}".
Usually brandishing implies or requires it to be displayed in some level of a threatening manner.
so in your mind it's perfectly normal for two guys to be holding guns in a convince store?
These days I have no fuggin' idea
what is considered normal anymore. I had a classmate who was given permission to bring a 1851 .36 cal. revolver to high school to show our history class studying the civil war what type of firearms were used. No one raised an eye then, now, he and the teacher would be arrested. Where I live, in rural NY, a couple store clerks showing each other their CC pistols wouldn't raise my eyebrows at all, so long as they were not pointing it at me. I can't speak for other people though, but in my mind, yup, perfectly normal. Last year I saw 3 teen-aged boys walking down the streets through the next town over with uncased rifles. I thought, "They're going hunting."
You keep tripping over that "totality of circumstances" bit that you still cannot grasp, and still have not caught on to the fact you're "this close" to getting it (but never will).
I'm not sure its a big deal. Like we keep saying here, when in contact with LEO just comply with them..if they feel better with you disarmed so be it, it will only be temporary.
Yes, yes and yes. Thank you for speaking up! I won't read the thread beyond Ingwe's post. It should have ended there.
Uh, Dude, I have a 10/22 rifle and know the difference between a Charger and a cut-down rifle. Dude! Most people don't wrap duct tape around the pistol grip area of a Charger. Besides, the Charger was introduced in 2008 and the incident happened in the mid-90s. Dude.
I believed you. I just wanted to show the Charger since it was mentioned. Why'd you call the cops on the guy for having a gun that violated an
unconstitutional law, though?
As a public official on official business, if it became known that I had seen it and knew it was illegal and didn't do anything about it, it could have had consequences. Besides, this was not a good guy, hence, him being rubbed out.
So, you either abused an unconstitutional law (in your mind) by reporting it, or you broke a state law by allowing it to continue. Hmmm...
Your STILL don't get what TRH trapped you with, and you won't.
And, if it wasn't your job to investigate crimes, and/or apprehend criminals, then it is still irrelevant.
"For the last time CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON IS ILLEGAL IN NEW MEXICO!"
Except if one has a CC permit (I really don't care how it is worded, if he had a CC permit there would be no crime and the LEO did not know that he did not have a CC when he seized the firearm).
As for brandishing, it is usually more than just showing an interested person your firearm. If that was the case I've committed brandishing thousands of times. While laws may very from State to State and I could not find NM's definition of brandishing, I did find this:
"{Very generally, however, for an operating definition “brandishing” means to display, show, wave, or exhibit the firearm in a manner which another person might find threatening. You can see how widely and differently this can be subjectively interpreted by different “reasonable” individuals and entities}".
Usually brandishing implies or requires it to be displayed in some level of a threatening manner.
Do you understand that under NM LAW having a concealed weapons permit is merely an affirmative defense to the crime, the same as carrying in one's owned property or vehicle, thus the mere observation of the concealed gun was REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A CRIME. upon asserts in ingredients that the defendant did not have a permit, nor was it his property, it became PROBABLE CAUSE for an arrest...is it sinking in yet?
Boy that is one fugged up law. You're ok with that?? You defend that?? When is something not against the law, when it's against the law but we have this affirmative defense thingy. CCs are illegal, 'cept they are not really, but they are. And you guys think I'm against the 2nd Amendment. Ha! Anyone who lives and stays in NM should not look down their nose at NY. Compared to NM, in many ways, NY's CC law is better, certainly a lot less complicated.
"For the last time CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON IS ILLEGAL IN NEW MEXICO!"
Except if one has a CC permit (I really don't care how it is worded, if he had a CC permit there would be no crime and the LEO did not know that he did not have a CC when he seized the firearm).
As for brandishing, it is usually more than just showing an interested person your firearm. If that was the case I've committed brandishing thousands of times. While laws may very from State to State and I could not find NM's definition of brandishing, I did find this:
"{Very generally, however, for an operating definition “brandishing” means to display, show, wave, or exhibit the firearm in a manner which another person might find threatening. You can see how widely and differently this can be subjectively interpreted by different “reasonable” individuals and entities}".
Usually brandishing implies or requires it to be displayed in some level of a threatening manner.
Do you understand that under NM LAW having a concealed weapons permit is merely an affirmative defense to the crime, the same as carrying in one's owned property or vehicle, thus the mere observation of the concealed gun was REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A CRIME. upon asserts in ingredients that the defendant did not have a permit, nor was it his property, it became PROBABLE CAUSE for an arrest...is it sinking in yet?
Boy that is one fugged up law. You're ok with that?? You defend that?? When is something not against the law, when it's against the law but we have this affirmative defense thingy. CCs are illegal, 'cept they are not really, but they are. And you guys think I'm against the 2nd Amendment. Ha! Anyone who lives and stays in NM should not look down their nose at NY. Compared to NM, in many ways, NY's CC law is better, certainly a lot less complicated.
Oh?
PLEASE regale us on how NYS concealed carry laws are NOT an affirmative defense against otherwise illegal concealed carry.
This, ought to be good.
"For the last time CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON IS ILLEGAL IN NEW MEXICO!"
Except if one has a CC permit (I really don't care how it is worded, if he had a CC permit there would be no crime and the LEO did not know that he did not have a CC when he seized the firearm).
As for brandishing, it is usually more than just showing an interested person your firearm. If that was the case I've committed brandishing thousands of times. While laws may very from State to State and I could not find NM's definition of brandishing, I did find this:
"{Very generally, however, for an operating definition “brandishing” means to display, show, wave, or exhibit the firearm in a manner which another person might find threatening. You can see how widely and differently this can be subjectively interpreted by different “reasonable” individuals and entities}".
Usually brandishing implies or requires it to be displayed in some level of a threatening manner.
Do you understand that under NM LAW having a concealed weapons permit is merely an affirmative defense to the crime, the same as carrying in one's owned property or vehicle, thus the mere observation of the concealed gun was REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A CRIME. upon asserts in ingredients that the defendant did not have a permit, nor was it his property, it became PROBABLE CAUSE for an arrest...is it sinking in yet?
Boy that is one fugged up law. You're ok with that?? You defend that?? When is something not against the law, when it's against the law but we have this affirmative defense thingy. CCs are illegal, 'cept they are not really, but they are. And you guys think I'm against the 2nd Amendment. Ha! Anyone who lives and stays in NM should not look down their nose at NY. Compared to NM, in many ways, NY's CC law is
better, certainly a lot less complicated.
I would suggest reading sect. 265, of the ny penal law completely
especially the part where it talks about exempted persons under section 400 (pistol permits) then tell.me again about how screwed up NM laws are
Proof that y'all ain't even reading each other's posts....... 4ager evidently doesn't know that one of the NYC bouroughs is named JAMAICA and the NY guy never even picked up on it. He could have blacked Sean's ass with that.
Hell, I'm from Texas and I know about Jamaica N Y.😀
Gene, in this case it is referencing Jamaica the island
Proof that y'all ain't even reading each other's posts....... 4ager evidently doesn't know that one of the NYC bouroughs is named JAMAICA and the NY guy never even picked up on it. He could have blacked Sean's ass with that.
Hell, I'm from Texas and I know about Jamaica N Y.😀
There might be a Jamaica in Queens, but there ain't a Montego Bay there.
http://www.recordonline.com/article/20100209/BIZ/2090334
Proof that y'all ain't even reading each other's posts....... 4ager evidently doesn't know that one of the NYC bouroughs is named JAMAICA and the NY guy never even picked up on it. He could have blacked Sean's ass with that.
Hell, I'm from Texas and I know about Jamaica N Y.😀
One of the stops on the LIRR. LOL. That's the only way I know it.
Maybe you missed that "forcibly disarmed" part in the story above?
That means any cop has the right to forcibly disarm any citizen before they even ask if you have a license. You good with that?
Words in a "news" report don't mean it really happened that way. Reality is you don't know what happened during that stop, and the person involved didn't have a permit to carry.