I got pulled over today.....

[fd15k]

To me the is a prime example and is perfect to be compared to what happened to the OP. Why do the governmental employees get special treatment. Their "Officer Safety" is more important then Our rights? I think not.

The above example is kind of tricky. Municipal government can pass any laws they want, even if they're backdated. I think it is the fault of the citizens in that municipality to allow for such thing to happen. They should invoke their mechanisms of democracy to set the things right.

And to answer your question why officers of the law get special treatment ? Because our representatives (on our behalf) made it that way. If you disagree, make sure to deliver the message to the officials you elected.


Btw, I just recalled something. There was that 2A case on the East Coast recently, where the judge pretty much said - if you're a law abiding citizen, you get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny under 2A, but a less than law abiding citizen gets intermediate scrutiny. I am okay with such approach.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

And to answer your question why officers of the law get special treatment ? Because our representatives (on our behalf) made it that way. If you disagree, make sure to deliver the message to the officials you elected.

Officials I elected? Tried it. Time and time again. Falls on deaf ears. Tried it through the ballot box, the phone, the computer, doesn't make any difference. Maybe because I voted for the other guy.
Officer safety reigns supreme. With the increasing number of police-initiated shootings, screw it if the posted-speed-limit-breaking peon/criminal (or insert any other minor offense) makes it home to his family, just as long as the officer makes it home to his (or her) family...with blood on their hands...of a fellow citizen who broke a speed limit and was stupid enough to think they have the constitution on their side...on a paid vacation.
And those crazy tinfoil hat wearing folks say a revolution is coming and the breaking point of a police state is too close. I'd sure hate to be on the bad guy's side.

 

[fd15k]

Officials I elected? Tried it. Time and time again. Falls on deaf ears. Tried it through the ballot box, the phone, the computer, doesn't make any difference. Maybe because I voted for the other guy.
Officer safety reigns supreme. With the increasing number of police-initiated shootings, screw it if the posted-speed-limit-breaking peon/criminal (or insert any other minor offense) makes it home to his family, just as long as the officer makes it home to his (or her) family...with blood on their hands...of a fellow citizen who broke a speed limit and was stupid enough to think they have the constitution on their side...on a paid vacation.
And those crazy tinfoil hat wearing folks say a revolution is coming and the breaking point of a police state is too close. I'd sure hate to be on the bad guy's side.

Here is an interesting suggestion... why not bring it up with... NRA ?

 

[lamrith]

I am not sure if this has been stated or not, I do confess I did not read all 6 pages of responses. However, if you are a Washington resident with a CPL, you should carefully review RCW 9.41.050, part 2, letter a, number 1. Couple that with part b, and be thankful you had an encounter with that particular officer. Just sayin...

He should be fine. 9.41.050, 2, 1, ii covers him completely, he was in the vehicle with the weapon. It is not required the weapon be on his person.

(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.

 

[davemata]

Btw, I just recalled something. There was that 2A case on the East Coast recently, where the judge pretty much said - if you're a law abiding citizen, you get Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia under 2A, but a less than law abiding citizen gets intermediate scrutiny. I am okay with such approach.

Reason I didn't reply back was because I started in on my bottle of whisky there hoss.

Are you referring to Bateman v. Purdue where strict scrutiny was applied to a ban on weapons outside the home, and was summarily struck down?

I'm personally against the concept of intermediate scrutiny, as it will bring in discretion on the side of the judge when in fact things are very clear cut. There is no such difference between a law abiding citizen and a less than law abiding citizen. You are either innocent or guilty, and if you are guilty that has to be proven. It's really that simple and cut and dry. You're either guilty of a crime and the state proves it, or you are law abiding. Things get a little murky in my opinion with convicts, but they're already federally PP, so they are out of the equation. Being ok with a system where people are considered guilty without proof means that the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty is completely out the window for good.

Being ok with such approach means you're ok with discretion that can be quite capricious. Have you ever lived under such a system where discretion can be used to deny a basic fundamental right? I have. What happens is the well connected are taken care of, and everyone else has their rights infringed.

 

[section24]

You are right! I was wrong! My apologies lamrith!

 

[lamrith]

All Good Section24! We all have to look out for each other, sometimes the law does leave a bit of Vaguary that can be interpreted badly. Willing to bet some LEO have/could/will read it the same way you did..

Definitely worth all of us keeping in mind if you are pulled over, keep the attitude in check lest they have that view of the law and "have reason" to push the issue due to your bad attitude.

 

[Botte Hork]

Have you ever lived under such a system where discretion can be used to deny a basic fundamental right? I have. What happens is the well connected are taken care of, and everyone else has their rights infringed.

Actually, we all do in the US. Simply put, there are some ways to have your 2A rights revoked, basically being a 'prohibited person':

1) Being a convicted of felony.
2) Being a fugutive.
3) Being a substance abuser.
4) Being mentally defective or, and that's the key, having been committed to a mental institution.
5) Being an illegal alien and a few other immigration related criteria.
6) In case of some violence related charges.


As most of us are good people who are either citizens (or in my case legally here) without any law-breaking intent and without any substance issues or other craziness, none of these apply. Except if you get committed to a mental institution, even if you're not sick at all, that doesn't matter. So the easy route to revoking 2A rights is to round everybody up and have 'em stay overnight in an institution for "observation", give the "all OK" stamp in the morning and drop 'em off at home while loading up the contents of the gun safe. Because they were committed to a mental institution. Probably far fetched, but in my field of work I have to look at specifications and verify that devices work under all corner conditions, so I learned to read differently and make connections.

This is actually a good reason to keep a close eye on the thread that was posted here some time ago on doctors wanting to consider 2A-advocacy a mental deficiency. Smooths the threshold to get people in the system. That's discretion for you.

 

[fd15k]

Reason I didn't reply back was because I started in on my bottle of whisky there hoss.

No worries, I was flushing my tubes with some excellent beer too...

Are you referring to Bateman v. Purdue where strict scrutiny was applied to a ban on weapons outside the home, and was summarily struck down?

US v. Chester

Have you ever lived under such a system where discretion can be used to deny a basic fundamental right? I have. What happens is the well connected are taken care of, and everyone else has their rights infringed.

Yes, in more than one place (US excluded).

 

[fd15k]

Actually, we all do in the US. Simply put, there are some ways to have your 2A rights revoked, basically being a 'prohibited person':

1) Being a convicted of felony.
2) Being a fugutive.
3) Being a substance abuser.
4) Being mentally defective or, and that's the key, having been committed to a mental institution.
5) Being an illegal alien and a few other immigration related criteria.
6) In case of some violence related charges.

I would add two more interesting ones to the list : having bench warrants issued due to clerical errors and having restraining orders issued based on false accusations.

 

[Botte Hork]

I would add two more interesting ones to the list : having bench warrants issued due to clerical errors and having restraining orders issued based on false accusations.

Doesn't the first one fall under "fugutive"? And what if the restraining order gets lifted as it was proven to be a false accusation? Doesn't that automatically restore rights?

 

[fd15k]

Doesn't the first one fall under "fugutive"? And what if the restraining order gets lifted as it was proven to be a false accusation? Doesn't that automatically restore rights?

You're correct on both counts, but both are examples of losing 2A rights temporarily without any actual wrongdoing.

 

[davemata]

Actually, we all do in the US. Simply put, there are some ways to have your 2A rights revoked, basically being a 'prohibited person':

Well put. Not precisely what I was thinking about, but fair.

The discretion system I was directly referring to however was the process for being allowed the privilege of owning a firearm in MA. To do so you:
1. Take a class
2. Fill out an application and pay a fee
3. You jump through the application hoops which generally include:
a. References, sometimes from a doctor saying you are of sound mind
b. You are compelled to join a shooting club
c. You may need a physical
4. You are fingerprinted
5. You sit for an interview with the Chief of police, or their appointed licensing officer.
6. You are queried, and given the chance to tell the chief warlord or his lieutenant why you deserve the "privilege"
7. You wait
8. Some 60-180+ days later you receive a call to pick up your license, a denial, or you receive the license in the mail

The biggest BS of this whole process is that you can be denied for any reason, the chief warlord is given discretion in determining "suitability", they are also given discretion to go around the law and apply "restrictions" to your license outside of what the law allows. You can have your ability to own a firearm within that state pulled at any time, for any reason, and you have almost zero recourse.

That's a craptastic discretionary system that can remove rights at a moment's notice from anyone who isn't a PP. Not fun, eh? When I get around to it, I'm going to wipe my *** with my MA license and send it to my old Chief.

ETA - However if you are well connected, you don't wait long, or get restricted.

 

[davemata]

US v. Chester

Thanks, I'll check it out.

 

[coastal steelheader]

First time being pulled over while carrying and I have to say this female trooper did it right. Very courteous and even flashed a couple smiles. I kept my hands on the wheel and notified her right as she got to the window since she was going to see both of them anyways.

For some strange reason I thought this post was going to go another direction

 

[MountainBear]

For some strange reason I thought this post was going to go another direction

It would have made for a better thread...

 

[kott0n]

So much bullbubblegum. If you guys aren't willing to stand up for your rights during traffic stops, what makes you feel so secure that your rights won't be walked all over?

99% of what a cop does is phrase questions as commands. An example: He is really asking "Will you please hand me your firearm, sir?" when he says it like this "Give me your firearm now!", If you don't understand this MASSIVE tactic used by police they will bully you into a corner fast as bubblegum.

My safety is the paramount concern of mine, not to be superseded by the officers want/need to feel safe.

Continue to let cops slowly erode your rights.

 

[Stomper]

. When I get around to it, I'm going to wipe my *** with my MA license and send it to my old Chief.

LMAO... You could run it through your cheeks like a credit card reader.... Eeewwwww!

 

[fd15k]

So much bullbubblegum. If you guys aren't willing to stand up for your rights during traffic stops, what makes you feel so secure that your rights won't be walked all over?

If you're convinced you can refuse giving your firearm to a LEO during such interaction, perhaps you can provide some citations for that. I don't believe anybody in here is volunteering search of their vehicle, your bold statement is really groundless.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

If you're convinced you can refuse giving your firearm to a LEO during such interaction, perhaps you can provide some citations for that. I don't believe anybody in here is volunteering search of their vehicle, your bold statement is really groundless.

Some cops have became rapists and girl killers.. I remember one in Southern Cali in the 1980s.. CA HWY Patrol. Now if I suspected that you bet I would not only retain my weapon but possibly use it.. it's a judgement call with strong consequences but I would never see a lady in my charge undefended. On the other hand if all cops were virtuous and BORs obeying I might put my life on the line to assist one in a dire straight