"Your rights have been suspended"

[raftman]

Yes in Oregon it definitly does. Most will never say a word, as they know at that point you have undergone a thorough background check and most likely not one of the BA;s. Most officers are decent about it. It is usually towns like Portland or Eugene that you can have the wyatt earps, but most are not going to cause you any greif. There are exceptions everywhere, but not the majority.

Is there some kind of evidence? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's false info, just hoping to get more certainty of it than someone from an online forum saying "Yep, that's the case."

 

[Partsproduction]

Because the definition of "infringed" is understood to mean that no laws shall be passed that prevents your ownership and to some extent, right to carry arms. A cop, by asking you to voluntarily surrender your piece, is not passing a law, he is asking you to voluntarily comply. There is no infringement.

That's the weirdest misinterpretation I've ever seen, where did you come up with all that?
in·fringe (in frinj&#8242

transitive verb infringed -·fringed′, infringing -·fring′·ing
to break (a law or agreement); fail to observe the terms of; violate

The meaning should be clear enough for most of us, the law says you have a right to keep and bear arms. To deny you of that right is an infringement of the law! Time has nothing to do with it, the fact that he may (If you are real nice) give it back to you does not change the fact that he has broken the law! If people want to enforce the law then they should not infringe upon it! Please stop trying to justify illegal activity just because it is done by police, that implies that they cannot break the law, and anyone with a lick of sense knows that some police do at times break the law.

If his life is valuable does that mean mine isn't? Are you trying to say I'm going to suddenly shoot a cop but that a cop can't suddenly shoot me? Do you think they are supermen? Do you think their morals are superior? On what basis should he be allowed to be armed when I'm not?

Since the law says I have a right to keep and bear arms what that really means, and I know by now this will be kinda hard to fathom, but it means I have a (legal) right to keep (Did you catch that part?) and bear (Doesn't say at an officers discretion, does it?) arms.

Why twist it up? What's in it for you to make it say something less?

I'm really getting angry about this.

"But we are all created equal, it's just that some of us are more equal than others."

 

[Partsproduction]

No wonder we are losing our rights, people just assume authorities can take them!

 

[Sodbuster]

Guess my only defense would be to pull out naked pictures of Helen Thomas How's that for burning out your minds eye?

OH NOW, that was a mind image I just DIDN'T NEED!!! ewwwwwwwww.

 

[Karma]

Is there some kind of evidence? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's false info, just hoping to get more certainty of it than someone from an online forum saying "Yep, that's the case."

I have been pulled over a fair number of times in the past 12 years or so that I have had my chl. To that I will add that I have never been issued a ticket. I have a older car that I use for commuting that draws the eyes of the traffic police apparently.

I do not ever offer my chl to the officer, or mention it at all when stopped. Multiple times, although not all times, the officer has returned from running my dl and asked me if I have a chl, and if so why I never offered that information. I have told them everytime this happened that I had a bad experience shortly after I got my chl years ago, with an officer who was clueless. I decided I was better off not volunteering this information after that experience. The officer did obtain this information when he ran my dl.

During these traffic stops, I have never had an officer ask me for my firearm. They have at times questioned the location of the weapons, but that has been the extent of it.

My understanding of Oregon law is that you do not have to offer up the fact that you are armed to the officer, but you can't lie to him/her if you are questioned as to whether or not you are carrying. It is also my understanding that during a traffic stop because of caselaw, the officer conducting the stop my remove you from your vehicle and can do a patdown. Basically, the courts have decided that the officer in charge may take certain steps in order to try to insure his safety during a stop. The temporary suspension of certain rights during contact has been ruled legal.

I am not saying that I agree with the suspension of these rights, I am simply stating my understanding of things.

 

[Bruce]

Partsproduction why don't you be a test subject for Northwestfirearms and arm yourself and then run red lights or speed until you are stopped by the police?
You could start out using manners and then gravitate towards being a jerk and then you could tell us all about your experiences with Law Enforcement.
I look forward to your reports.

P.S. Partsproduction, please use a hostile voice and sudden hand movements as much as possible.

 

[Partsproduction]

Bruce, you have managed to ignore the message. It's your rights they want to grind into the dust.