Guns seized by BLM in Quartzsite for 2nd Amendment paint job?

Summary or FUQ?

He said too much information. This is an example of WHAT NOT TO DO. He should had asked if he was being detained and for what crime. At that point he has to provide ID. That being said, he did not have to answer any questions and should had asked immediately for a lawyer and for the officer to produce a search warrant. If you have to answer more than 4 sentences, you are talking too much! The last sentence should be: "I do not consent to any search of myself, my vehicle, nor any of my personal property and hereby demand your supervisor and my lawyer to be present before any further questioning!"

Arizona ID law.
13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

eye95 said:

Summary or FUQ?

Click to expand...

Did you read the title?

Yes.

Summary or FUQ?

eye95 said:

Summary or FUQ?

Click to expand...

Here you go EYE95 FUQ

Written by Jade Jones
Website: The Desert Freedom Press
Date: 04-08-2013
Subject: Gun Rights

According to the detailed description by Justin Reis, the "probable cause" for searching his school bus and seizing all of the guns was his red, white, and blue paint job with the Second Amendment painted on the side.

From https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/8TlW2,
"On 3/30/2013 at around 1:00pm I noticed that a BLM ranger was pulling up to my bus with his lights on. I walked out of my bus to meet him. His first Question to me was “Are you in a militia” I said NO. He then asked why I have militia propaganda on the side of my bus? I stated that it was the full and complete second amendment. He then asked how many armed adults where inside. I told him none that my wife and her brother and my 2 children where inside. He asked if there where firearms inside and I said yes. At this point he told me to stay put and he walked through the campsite and around the bus. He looked at my camp permit and said it was good. He then asked for my Name. I replied with Justin Ries and handed him my ID. He went back to his truck to run my name. SNIPPED ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you, FiA for that courtesy. You are a mensch.

Frankly, I found the thread title to be complete gibberish. Some folks assume that everyone else will understand jargon and know proper names. A simple FUQ cleared everything up and informed me that this was well worth exploring.

I would have donated to the defense fund, however, it seems that the matter has been resolved to the victim's satisfaction. I would not have been satisfied, but that ain't my call.

The officer overstepped his authority and violated the rights of the victim. He should be disciplined for his actions. Unfortunately, it seems that will not happen.

Again, thanks for the courtesy.

UPDATE - From his funds raised page posted 5 days ago:

"BLM just informed me that they will not be moving forward with charges and that My firearms are now on route to be returned to me. Thank you everyone for your support. and if anyone has a recommendation on a cause or other place for me to donate this 252.00 that this sight was able to raise please let me know."

I agree with others he talked way too much! Thankfully someone atleast had a camera and took pictures. This shows once again that without audio/video footage it is their word against yours. The photo's helped because apparently the local PD was trying to deny they were ever there...:uhoh: Even Arizona has anti constitution LEO's.

@ EYE95 - you are very welcome sir.

eye95 said:

Some folks assume that everyone else will understand jargon and know proper names. A simple FUQ cleared everything up

Click to expand...

On that note, what's FUQ? It's not likely what was at the top of a google search.:uhoh:

BigDeeeeeeee said:

On that note, what's FUQ? It's not likely what was at the top of a google search.:uhoh:

Click to expand...

IIRC FUQ = Fair Use Quote

Thank you. Now it all makes sense.

Isn't Quartzsite where the Mayor and Sheriff tried to deprive the entire town of their 2A rights?

What's a BLM?

Defrock said:

What's a BLM?

Click to expand...

That one is Bureau of Land Management.

BigDeeeeeeee said:

On that note, what's FUQ? It's not likely what was at the top of a google search.:uhoh:

Click to expand...

Glad you asked.

Glad someone beat me to it and answered.

Apart from the OP and a snarky replier, courtesy abounds in this thread. If one does not understand, he should ask. Folks should be willing to answer. Common courtesy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

J1MB0B said:

Did you read the title?

Click to expand...

Do you know what the "Q" stands for?

NMOCr said:

...At that point he has to provide ID....

Arizona ID law.
13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained....

Click to expand...

Please accept a clarification. Providing ID and providing your name are usually treated differently, in that the term "ID" usually refers to the actual government-issued document. AZ does not require one to provide ID unless one is performing an activity which requires them to have a license, like driving. Identifying yourself is required when detained. Providing ID is not.

Arizona ID law.
13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained
It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person...

Click to expand...

So these same lying officers who don't know the law are the ones we're supposed to trust to tell us the truth as to when we are legally required to answer, or if they actually have lawfully detained us?
:banghead:
And if we ask "of what crime do you suspect me and why?"
and they don't answer, or give us a bogus answer, then what?
Say nothing except "I do not believe I am lawfully detained, I want the shift commander here"?

If they will not tell you that you are detained, force the issue by slowly turning and trying to leave. You might even punctuate that idea by saying, "Well, if I am not being detained, then I will just be on my way." If by command or action the officer stops you, then you will have clearly established that you are being detained. Follow the rules for a lawful detention. If the detention is not lawful, sort that out later. If it turns out that the detention is lawful (there is no way of knowing for sure that it is not) and you do not ID yourself, now you have committed a crime.

All of this is moot if you are not running a recorder or if you don't verbalize the officers silent actions, like grabbing your arm.

Well,,,I have to agree,,,

the threat of being detained is strong...
My friend showed how to do it,, and I was proud!

three cops tried to to corrall him in the store...
He just brushed past them and left the area,,, saying ,,, Nothanks.....