I got pulled over today.....

[hermannr]

A cop pulls over someone speeding. THEY ARE IN THE WRONG, THIS IS NOT IN DOUBT ACCORDING TO THE OP.

The cop, pulling over said citizen then is notifies of two handguns in trivially easy range of being drawn, but instead of dragging out the citizen and proning him, simply takes posession of the two guns dor 4-5 minutes, then returns the guns and gives the guy a warning.

IN WHAT WAY did this encounter come out in some negative way for the citizen? HO EXACTLY was he at anytime deprived of any right other than some perceived "right" to shoot a cop in a good stop?

This is whhere a fundamental right comes into conflict with a violation of non-rights-based law.

YES, the OP had the right to keep and bear arms. that rights is curtailed by his ADMITTANCE to a violation of law, during which, in the investigation (4-5 minutes) the cop took away a weapon which could and HAS been used against officers, REPEATEDLY in that exact same circumstance.

The guys claiming the cop had no rights are wrong. You are wrong Legally (see Terry vs. Ohio) and wrong morally when you think that our cops don't have a valid reason to disarm in an extremely volitile and uncontrolable situation.

There are aq thousand cases every year in which the cop did something really egregious. This isn't one of them. Even the OP doesn't feel that way.

Some people are just all about the cops are always wrong. I think 90% of this thread could be jetissoned as representing that POV.

You just refuse to understand don't you Bill??? A Traffic stop is for s CIVIL INFRACTION...Traffic infractions are generally not CRIMES. (there are a couple extremes that my be classified as crimes, like reckless endangerment)...but speeding, tail light out, running a stop sign...those are CIVIL INFRACTIONS Terry V Ohio is about reasonable suspician of a CRIME.

And no, if a person, has his pistol seized for 1 sec, it has been seized. The amount of time it was taken by force is irrelivent. We are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and we are to be safe in our personal affairs. Having an Officer seize my carry, and there by violate our state constitution, and check it out for no reason than his presumption of my guilt until proven innocent is contrary to our laws and traditions.

At a traffic stop A cop has no "right" to search your car, your person, or your carry. He either needs a warrent, or reasonable suspician of a crime that has been committed, or is being committed, that he can suscinctly explain to a judge for either. A traffic violation is NOT A CRIME.

To be consistant Bill, do you believe that an officer can seize and search your car for no other reason than just a traffic stop?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Actually he needs a warrant for any and all searches unless he is arresting someone on a felony crime and the body search is coincidental for officer safety. He still needs a warrant to search the vehicle. Carefully read the 4th and you will see the 2nd half is in accord with the first, all of one intent, just as the 2nd is written

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A warrant is always required and the conditions for it are clearly listed. Any searches without meeting those requirements are unreasonable

 

[Boomerang]

A warrant is always required

This is not true. I somewhat agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but as defined by the courts, there are many exceptions to the requirement for a warrant, for example: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Blitzkrieg]

This is not true. I somewhat agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but as defined by the courts, there are many exceptions to the requirement for a warrant, for example: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You haven't read my posts.. 9 traitors in robes cannot alter original intent. There are NO exceptions in the 4th

I'll repeat.. if the SC ruled that 10% of the population must be euthanized via a lottery, would you comply?

 

[hermannr]

This is not true. I somewhat agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but as defined by the courts, there are many exceptions to the requirement for a warrant, for example: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lets just talk about OR, WA and ID...OK? Not the US 4th. The US Supreme Court says that roadblock stops for DUI are OK...WA state Constitution (and OR and ID too) as interperated by our state supreme courts have said...no, roadblock stops for DUI and license checks are not legal in WA, OR and ID.

I will be more specific here, but this also fits OR and ID...The WA State Constitution is unequivical when it comes to Article 1 section 7 (secure in our lives, 4th equivilent) and the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms in their own self defence (section 24).

DO NOT go automatically to US Supreme Court rulings when you see violations of the 2A or the 4A when in OR, ID or WA...these state's constitutions have much better protection than the US Constitution's protections.

 

[Boomerang]

You haven't read my posts.. 9 traitors in robes cannot alter original intent. There are NO exceptions in the 4th

I'll repeat.. if the SC ruled that 10% of the population must be euthanized via a lottery, would you comply?

We're talking about two different things. You're talking about the way you want things to be (and the way the arguably should be). I'm talking about the way things are.

 

[Boomerang]

DO NOT go automatically to US Supreme Court rulings when you see violations of the 2A or the 4A when in OR, ID or WA...these state's constitutions have much better protection than the US Constitution's protections.

Good point.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

We're talking about two different things. You're talking about the way you want things to be (and the way the arguably should be). I'm talking about the way things are.

You are talking about the current farce and illegitimate government and I am talking about original intent and eternal God given liberties that no man can take away

 

[Galant]

This thread makes me laugh.

Im with Blitzkrieg. It seems to me he is for freedom.

This is my official auto "like" to his posts cause I feel like I press the Like button every time I read something he wrote.

 

[Boomerang]

You are talking about the current farce and illegitimate government and I am talking about original intent and eternal God given liberties that no man can take away

I actually agree with you.

But the current government is in no way illegitimate. We have given it legitimacy by allowing it to have the powers it has. Instead of declaring publicly "give me liberty or give me death", we complain on anonymous internet forums then go back to the real world and knuckle under.

Concerning liberties that "no man can take away"-- They most certainly can be taken away, we see it happen every day. Now, I agree with the founding fathers that they are supposed to be innate rights that can never be abridged or removed in any way, but we have decided that is not true in the United States, by allowing the courts and laws to mandate that they aren't.

The real culprit is not the government, it's ultimately us.

 

[dmancornell]

The real culprit is not the government, it's ultimately us.

No it's not. The state is the framework created by the ruling class to carry out their crimes. Democracy is the lie that lends legitimacy to the state. It is ludicrous to blame the people for crimes committed by the vast government bureaucracies, all run by un-elected functionaries.

"We" didn't create this monster. The ruling class created it then gave the people the illusion of choice to manufacture legitimacy.

 

[Boomerang]

No it's not. The state is the framework created by the ruling class to carry out their crimes. Democracy is the lie that lends legitimacy to the state. It is ludicrous to blame the people for crimes committed by the vast government bureaucracies, all run by un-elected functionaries.

"We" didn't create this monster. The ruling class created it then gave the people the illusion of choice to manufacture legitimacy.

Hmmm. As far as I know, the United States was created as a republic, not a democracy. Also, how do you define the ruling class, people with money?

 

[dmancornell]

Hmmm. As far as I know, the United States was created as a republic, not a democracy. Also, how do you define the ruling class, people with money?

By democracy, I meant the institution of voting, nothing more.

As for the ruling class, here is a good primer on the term: <broken link removed>

 

[Redcap]

"Seize?" for 4-6 minutes is now Seize?

GL getting ANY jurist in the country to agree with you in this context. By all means, bring the suit. When you lose, come here and cry how wrong you were. Or do you disagree that we are a nation of laws and your half-assed opinion counts for squat on a fundamental legal principle?

You
're simple reading ahould be the law and everyone who disagrees with you WITH YOU SHOULD BE IN JAIL?

This is the WHOLE POINT of courts under our system. We need a funal arbiter f what the constitution MEANS. This same system is what gave us Holder and McDonald. We don't gt the luxury of throwing out that final arbiter's POV because we don't share it. We have a very specific process to do that. Do it or STFU.

 

[fd15k]

Im with Blitzkrieg. It seems to me he is for freedom.

Reminds me of

 

[tlfreek]

is it really that big of a deal if a cop takes your gun away for 2 minutes? It's quite funny actually reading this and yes I suspect I know the response I'll get for this. Of all the violation of rights, it kills me we center on this one as pinnacle.

BTW happy holidays everyone

 

[kengrubb]

is it really that big of a deal if a cop takes your gun away for 2 minutes? It's quite funny actually reading this and yes I suspect I know the response I'll get for this.

Given the chest thumping on this thread, it makes one wonder why there aren't more incidents during traffic stops. Could be that the comfort of the armchair doesn't extend to the highways and byways. Bet that wasn't the response you were expecting.

BTW happy holidays everyone

And a Splendid Solstice to you!

Keep Saturn in Saturnalia.

 

[davemata]

is it really that big of a deal if a cop takes your gun away for 2 minutes? It's quite funny actually reading this and yes I suspect I know the response I'll get for this. Of all the violation of rights, it kills me we center on this one as pinnacle.

BTW happy holidays everyone

That was just mind bottling.

So what happens when officer sticky fingers shoots themself or their partner with your gun that they took from you.

In fact, you know what? Maybe they should take some other things from you during a stop, I mean, of all the violated rights to worry about...

Maybe they take your money for a few minutes. Or your wife, for a full check out. Maybe your phone? I mean, it's just 2 minutes, not a big deal right?

 

[FourTeeFive]

is it really that big of a deal if a cop takes your gun away for 2 minutes?

Yes

1. Surrendering your gun any time you are carrying is a big deal. If you haven't done anything wrong, why are you surrendering it, even for a supposed short amount of time?

2. Giving a loaded firearm to someone who is potentially unfamiliar with it is just plain irresponsible.

 

[Father of four]

Given the chest thumping on this thread, it makes one wonder why there aren't more incidents during traffic stops. Could be that the comfort of the armchair doesn't extend to the highways and byways. Bet that wasn't the response you were expecting.


And a Splendid Solstice to you!

Keep Saturn in Saturnalia.

I will say everything that I have said...typed here face to face to you or anyone else. I bet I am not the only one here who would also do that.