Do I have to let LEO run serial # of handgun??

twoskinsonemanns · Aug 23, 2012

riverrat10k said:
Are your trolling for a rise to report to your masters? You seem to be trying to inflame.

A rise to report to your masters? What an odd and asinine thing to say....

I'm not going to debate the word cowardly. I honestly felt it was not an escalation.
Whatever substance you want to give to "grow a pair", given Sig's account of what happened do we still feel that way?

peter nap · Aug 23, 2012

Well....despite efforts otherwise, this is just getting worse.
Since I'm stuck in the burbs for another day.....might as well go out and listen to all the traffic.

wylde007 · Aug 23, 2012

Sig229 said:
"Suckered in"? lol Okay, the LEO opens my door from the outside, grasps my left arm, tells me to unbuckle my seat belt, and forces me out of my vehicle, and thats what you call being "suckered in".

Well, then. That is information you neglected to include in your first post.

Afterward, he and another officer then proceeds to search my vehicle, all while I loudly protest that " I did not give permission for the search of my vehicle" he then sees a loaded spare magazine in my glove box and shouts back "okay, tell that to the judge!" They then pop the truck, see's my Sig 229 and ask "are you even allowed to own a gun?" I say "I am and I have a License to Carry".

Oops. That either.

After tearing my car apart and finding no drugs or other contraband, they give me a warning for "driving unsafely in weather conditions". It was 23 degrees out, cloudy and no precipitation.

Orrrrrr that.

And you think thats being suckered in.

I don't... NOW.

Well tough guy, I sure wish you would enlighten all of us lowly pions on how you would have handled that situation.

I already covered how "tough" I am and how it is both arrogant and ignorant to announce certain proclivities or intentions on a public forum.

Pennsylvania is a a large state and has more than cities than Philly.

Yes, but Philly is a special case because of their "First Class" designation, or something like that where a permit is REQUIRED to OC. Am I right or am I wrong. Please, enlighten me.

Please, all police know when THEY are breaking the law. And Virginia isnt immune to having out of control officers doing what the please.

Also already covered earlier in the thread.

Thank you for providing the additional information.

twoskinsonemanns · Aug 23, 2012

Ok Ok. Great... Now we're friends again eh?

Sig229 · Aug 23, 2012

wylde007 said:
Well, then. That is information you neglected to include in your first post.Oops. .

Whether that information was included or not, it doesn't change what I have said before.
There ARE LEO's out there who dont care what your civil and/or constitutional rights are.
They are going to take your weapon out of your control and run the SN and most likely probably man-handle it to make sure its clear.

wylde007 · Aug 24, 2012

Sig229 said:
Whether that information was included or not, it doesn't change what I have said before.
There ARE LEO's out there who dont care what your civil and/or constitutional rights are.
They are going to take your weapon out of your control and run the SN and most likely probably man-handle it to make sure its clear.

There are lots of people in all walks who are unqualified for the positions they hold.

It is the responsibility of the PEOPLE to keep those in a public capacity in their place.

Sorry you had a tough row with your "servants". File complaints. Record encounters. FOIA reports and dashcam video. Sue them for 4th Amendment violations.

Let us know how it turns out.

twoskinsonemanns · Aug 24, 2012

wylde007 said:
There are lots of people in all walks who are unqualified for the positions they hold.

It is the responsibility of the PEOPLE to keep those in a public capacity in their place.

Sorry you had a tough row with your "servants". File complaints. Record encounters. FOIA reports and dashcam video. Sue them for 4th Amendment violations.

Let us know how it turns out.

Agreed. Sig did you have recording equipment going? Also have you started gather information for complaints/suits? How long has it been? I think every violation of this type needs to be challenged.

tcmech · Aug 24, 2012

Sig229 said:
You may not have to let the LEO, but lets be realistic.

Are you going to stop him from doing so?

If I believe he did I am going to file a FOIA and if it turns out he did I will get a lawyer and file civil suit against the jurisdiction for violation of my 4th amendment rights. It never ceases to amaze me that if a citizen is ignorant of the law they are guilty of a crime, yet if law enforcement who should know better is ignorant they get to pass the bill off to the taxpayers.

mwaterous · Aug 24, 2012

tcmech said:
If I believe he did I am going to file a FOIA and if it turns out he did I will get a lawyer and file civil suit against the jurisdiction for violation of my 4th amendment rights. It never ceases to amaze me that if a citizen is ignorant of the law they are guilty of a crime, yet if law enforcement who should know better is ignorant they get to pass the bill off to the taxpayers.

Case in point; Empire State "mass" shooting.

F350 · Aug 24, 2012

tcmech said:
If I believe he did I am going to file a FOIA and if it turns out he did I will get a lawyer and file civil suit against the jurisdiction for violation of my 4th amendment rights. It never ceases to amaze me that if a citizen is ignorant of the law they are guilty of a crime, yet if law enforcement who should know better is ignorant they get to pass the bill off to the taxpayers.

Yes the tax payers are the ones that get screwed in general, but remember 42 USC 1983 allows suing the INDIVIDUAL as well. ALSO do not overlook 18 USC 242; the criminal statute for "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

SOOOOO; cops are armed and by that very fact implied threat of a deadly weapon is there so imprisonment up to 10 years is there; go to the US Attorney's office with the same evidence as you would need for civil action and try to get a criminal action started against the officers; besides, this costs you NOTHING!!!

Also; as suggested by another poster I have placed a small piece of black electrical tape over the SN of my carry piece. In Colorado LEO is allowed to disarm for "officer protection", if they can see the SN then the "clear view" exception applies and they can run the SN. If they have to remover the tape that is another nail in their coffin, and I will use a 20# sledge hammer to drive it home!!

OC for ME · Aug 27, 2012

Plain view? Well, the tape fell off.....so says Officer Friendly.

Citizen · Aug 27, 2012

OC for ME said:
Plain view? Well, the tape fell off.....so says Officer Friendly.

Well, yes. The point isn't so much that the cop can't lie; the point is more in direction of catching those who don't even know they need to lie.

Readers should follow the blog listed below for a few weeks. Its really surprising how often a cop will testify to doing something prohibited by 4th Amendment case law. Meaning, at the time he did the prohibited action, he didn't know better and at the pre-trial hearing he didn't realize the action was prohibited (nor, presumably the prosecutor). He testified to it because he really did think it was a valid search or seizure. That, or he found out before trial that it was prohibited and was honest enough to testify truthfully.

I'm pretty sure this is how we got the case upon which we base taping serial numbers. In that case, Arizona v Hicks, the cop lifted a Bang & Olafsen turntable to read the serial number. Huh!?! That totally violates "plain view" doctrine. Yet, the cop did that, giving rise to one of the Supeme Courts more memorable phrases (paraphrase): A search is a search even if it only reveals the underside of a turntable.

www.fourthamendment.com

TFred · Aug 27, 2012

Citizen said:
Well, yes. The point isn't so much that the cop can't lie; the point is more in direction of catching those who don't even know they need to lie.

Readers should follow the blog listed below for a few weeks. Its really surprising how often a cop will testify to doing something prohibited by 4th Amendment case law. Meaning, at the time he did the prohibited action, he didn't know better and at the pre-trial hearing he didn't realize the action was prohibited (nor, presumably the prosecutor). He testified to it because he really did think it was a valid search or seizure. That, or he found out before trial that it was prohibited and was honest enough to testify truthfully.

I'm pretty sure this is how we got the case upon which we base taping serial numbers. In that case, Arizona v Hicks, the cop lifted a Bang & Olafsen turntable to read the serial number. Huh!?! That totally violates "plain view" doctrine. Yet, the cop did that, giving rise to one of the Supeme Courts more memorable phrases (paraphrase): A search is a search even if it only reveals the underside of a turntable.

www.fourthamendment.com

Has there been any case resolution to the idea that a piece of tape "obscures" the serial number to the violation of laws that prohibit such?

TFred

OC for ME · Aug 27, 2012

Citizen said:
Well, yes. The point isn't so much that the cop can't lie; the point is more in direction of catching those who don't even know they need to lie.

.....or, they think that what "they thought they knew" would be backed up by the prosecutor regardless of legality. When will prosecutors start prosecuting ignernt cops and their ignernt bosses? Or, cops don't have the Interwebs at work to look up case law.

F350 · Aug 27, 2012

OC for ME said:
.....or, they think that what "they thought they knew" would be backed up by the prosecutor regardless of legality. When will prosecutors start prosecuting ignernt cops and their ignernt bosses? Or, cops don't have the Interwebs at work to look up case law.

As I understand it filing criminal action against your local police with your local prosecutor involves going to the head of the complaint dept., a gal named Helen Wait; so if you want action, you can just to to Helen Wait (say it out loud and think about it).

In doing some looking on the web I found this interesting and relevant link....

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/polmis.php

If you're going to hit 'em with a stick, make it a BIG stick.

user · Aug 27, 2012

1) No.

2) There is such a thing as a consensual stop, basically the first and least intrusive level of "arrest" - that's where the cop walks up and asks a question. You don't have to answer, though something like, "I'd rather not chat just now, thank you" would be a good idea, and you can, and should, walk away.

3) The letter mentioned is probably the one I wrote. My website is down right now, because it's being shipped to a different server. But if anyone wants a copy, send me an email (not a PM) and I'll send you a PDF of it.

Thundar · Aug 29, 2012

Grapeshot said:
That is in part what our forefathers so stated.

Nevertheless, OCDO requires greater restraint:

Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts. See Forum Rules

I advocate nothing illegal here. The illegal act is the seizure of our firearms, not our resistance to tyranny.

Grapeshot · Aug 30, 2012

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

That is in part what our forefathers so stated.

Nevertheless, OCDO requires greater restraint:

Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts. See Forum Rules

Thundar said:
I advocate nothing illegal here. The illegal act is the seizure of our firearms, not our resistance to tyranny.

You repeat post #38 and the quote word for word for what purpose? What do you advocate?

I state unequivocally that we fight such illegal acts via the legislature or the court(s).

Thundar · Aug 30, 2012

Grapeshot said:
You repeat post #38 and the quote word for word for what purpose? What do you advocate?

I state unequivocally that we fight such illegal acts via the legislature or the court(s).

Grapeshot, i am not trying to be a smart a$$. What act do you think is illegal?

peter nap · Aug 30, 2012

Thundar said:
Grapeshot, i am not trying to be a smart a$$. What act do you think is illegal?

He already told you Thundar.

Originally Posted by Grapeshot
Think you are treading on very serious ground here. Consider OCDO rules and the implied suggestion of using force against a LEO.
Serious repercussions may result from pursuing either avenue - one on this forum & the other with a life style.

There is a place to discuss everything. This is the place to discuss resistance within the current Judaical system only.

You could join one of the fly swarms here and send PM's instead of improper posts, but since you're better than that, just do as I do and keep it to myself.

Do I have to let LEO run serial # of handgun??

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate