Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 100

Thread: This ruling in AZ? In AZ? yea, cops can take your guns anytime they want

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    This ruling in AZ? In AZ? yea, cops can take your guns anytime they want

    http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/nation...rily-take-guns

    PHOENIX - A new Arizona court ruling says police can take temporary custody of a person's gun for officer-safety reasons even if the person's contact with police was voluntary.



    Soon we will have a total night time confiscation of all guns the gov't can get their hands on from citizens..

  2. #2
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    As soon as that happens, I'm being detained as my personal effects have been seized according to the Fourth Amendment. My 'consensual encounter' with Officer Friendly is now at an end and I'll demand my effects and be on my way. If they're not releases then it's Definitely a detention.

  3. #3
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Interesting that it's for "officer safety" and not "public safety" when in fact the only reason the police officer should be contacting the individual at all is for the sake of public safety. Maybe if they didn't go around abusing their power the threat to them would be no more than the threat to the public and an encounter with a man with a gun could be "safely" surpassed altogether. Can't do that and further the politicians agenda, though. Better stick with the abuses of power and just make further abuses to counteract the increased threat level.

  4. #4
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    If the officer gets to hold your gun for his safety, does that mean you get to hold his for your safety?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    As soon as that happens, I'm being detained as my personal effects have been seized according to the Fourth Amendment. My 'consensual encounter' with Officer Friendly is now at an end and I'll demand my effects and be on my way. If they're not releases then it's Definitely a detention.
    Exactly. Which is why the description of this ruling makes no sense.

    -Sir, can we ask you a few questions?

    -Sure. How can I help you officer?

    -First, I need to disarm you so that we can proceed.

    -Am I free to go?

    How would the officers proceed with a consensual encounter if the disarming is not consensual? It's a ridiculous concept.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Exactly. Which is why the description of this ruling makes no sense.

    -Sir, can we ask you a few questions?
    SNIP
    If the citizen knows about this law/ruling.

    -No, and I mean hell no.

    -Am I free to leave?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  7. #7
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Would'a sure been nice if the report had linked to the AZ law in question, the person involved in the case or even the case number, right?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Would'a sure been nice if the report had linked to the AZ law in question, the person involved in the case or even the case number, right?
    Yea, I prefer source documents etc. vs. a media interpretation of same. The media gets it wrong SO often

  9. #9
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,507
    Doubt that ruling has anything in it about giving the firearm or other possessions back. I would not want to be carrying an expensive 1911 and be stopped thus.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Would'a sure been nice if the report had linked to the AZ law in question, the person involved in the case or even the case number, right?
    Here's the Ninth Circus of Appeals http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ It looks like they're a few days behind on opinions.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Well, what's next?

    Cops come to your door and you answer it politely. They come in and take all your guns for their safety.

    Oh, since they have them, they'll just take them back to the station with them to check for fingerprints of felons, chk serial #s, have time to run BR checks on the people etc .. for their safety of course.

    Here's a tip to remain safe - don't approach people willy-nilly.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Handgunlaw.us seems to have a link to the .PDF opinion
    http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/a...lofFIrearm.pdf

  13. #13
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    It would appear that the court was more than willing to bend over backwards to get the result it wanted (a felon in possession of a firearm) that it would pervert both the letter and intention of the Constitution.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Exactly. Which is why the description of this ruling makes no sense.

    -Sir, can we ask you a few questions?

    -Sure. How can I help you officer?

    -First, I need to disarm you so that we can proceed.

    -Am I free to go?

    How would the officers proceed with a consensual encounter if the disarming is not consensual? It's a ridiculous concept.
    It is. My state courts have ruled that merely holding on to somebody's ID can turn a social contact (consensual encounter) into a seizure, let alone a gun! (FWIW, LEO's are also prohibited in requesting ID from a passenger during a traffic stop unless the passenger committed an offense (Seatbelt, etc.) or they have RAS). I love my state's case law and privacy protecgtions.

    On a social contact, it is ok to briefly hold the id to copy the info on to a notepad, but it must be imeediately returned if not wishing to cause a constructive seizure.

    There seems to be some twisted "logic" afoot

  15. #15
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    "A man appealing a firearms misconduct conviction argued that Phoenix police wrongfully took his gun after he agreed to talk with officers on a street in a high-crime area."

    Don't talk to the police!

    It has been long understood that police can take guns for officer safety in an encounter, though I don't agree with it. If there is no RAS, and not detained, LEAVE!

    Nothing new here.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    "A man appealing a firearms misconduct conviction argued that Phoenix police wrongfully took his gun after he agreed to talk with officers on a street in a high-crime area."

    Don't talk to the police!

    It has been long understood that police can take guns for officer safety in an encounter, though I don't agree with it. If there is no RAS, and not detained, LEAVE!

    Nothing new here.
    I disagree with the don't talk to them thing, but granted in my state, they CANNOT take your gun if you are lawfully carrying it "just because". I deal with people CCWing all the time, and the only time I take their gun is when I am arresting them, or some other extenuating circ's.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    "A man appealing a firearms misconduct conviction argued that Phoenix police wrongfully took his gun after he agreed to talk with officers on a street in a high-crime area."

    Don't talk to the police!

    It has been long understood that police can take guns for officer safety in an encounter, though I don't agree with it. If there is no RAS, and not detained, LEAVE!

    Nothing new here.
    +1
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    I disagree with the don't talk to them thing, but granted in my state, they CANNOT take your gun if you are lawfully carrying it "just because". I deal with people CCWing all the time, and the only time I take their gun is when I am arresting them, or some other extenuating circ's.
    j

    Of course after you found something to grasp onto from your fishing expedition.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    I disagree with the don't talk to them thing, but granted in my state, they CANNOT take your gun if you are lawfully carrying it "just because". I deal with people CCWing all the time, and the only time I take their gun is when I am arresting them, or some other extenuating circ's.
    I agree with the "don't talk to them" thing. Thanks to the courts its our only option. Please don't think it rude when georg jetson asks "Am I free to go?". It's not because I'm rude... it's just that... I can't trust you. Thank the courts.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 08-02-2013 at 11:27 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    I agree with the "don't talk to them" thing. Thanks to the courts its our only option. Please don't think it rude when georg jetson asks "Am I free to go?". It's not because I'm rude... it's just that... I can't trust you. Thank the courts.
    I completely respect your opinion. I just disagree with it. I had ample experience dealing with the cops in college because I played in a loud band (UCSB and we played a lot of parties in Isla Vista) and naturally the cops had to come in response to complaints and shut us down sometimes.

    We developed a very good working relationship with the IV foot patrol. We were kind and respectful and we got that in return. I don't believe that police are to be avoided or feared. That's my opinion.

    I realize many people here think differently vis a vis the police. That's no skin off my back. I ENCOURAGE people to know where they stand iow ask questions like "am I free to go". I have no problem with people when they ask me that. If it's a terry or traffic stop, I tell them they are not free to go and that I will let them know when they are.

    Nobody should ever feel hesitant to ask a cop "am I free to leave"?

    fwiw, I've also been arrested (unpaid traffic ticket) and proned out at gunpoint (terry stop for armed robbery. I wasn't the guy but I matched the description).

    Cops were totally cool to me in both incidents, professional, fair and respectful. As they should be.

    Any cop who gets offended because somebody asks "am I free to leave" needs to consider another career choice

    cheers

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    I agree with the "don't talk to them" thing. Thanks to the courts its our only option. Please don't think it rude when georg jetson asks "Am I free to go?". It's not because I'm rude... it's just that... I can't trust you. Thank the courts.
    Its to the point now that I do not even wish to aid the police in solving crimes that I am just a witness. I don't trust them anymore.

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    I completely respect your opinion. I just disagree with it. I had ample experience dealing with the cops in college because I played in a loud band (UCSB and we played a lot of parties in Isla Vista) and naturally the cops had to come in response to complaints and shut us down sometimes.

    We developed a very good working relationship with the IV foot patrol. We were kind and respectful and we got that in return. I don't believe that police are to be avoided or feared. That's my opinion.

    I realize many people here think differently vis a vis the police. That's no skin off my back. I ENCOURAGE people to know where they stand iow ask questions like "am I free to go". I have no problem with people when they ask me that. If it's a terry or traffic stop, I tell them they are not free to go and that I will let them know when they are.

    Nobody should ever feel hesitant to ask a cop "am I free to leave"?

    fwiw, I've also been arrested (unpaid traffic ticket) and proned out at gunpoint (terry stop for armed robbery. I wasn't the guy but I matched the description).

    Cops were totally cool to me in both incidents, professional, fair and respectful. As they should be.


    Any cop who gets offended because somebody asks "am I free to leave" needs to consider another career choice

    cheers
    LOL......oh god good thing I stopped drinking coffee you really do make me laugh.

    Arrested for an unpaid traffic ticket and held at gun point for a crime you didn't commit......but hey they were cool to me.....hahahahaha

    Welcome to police state USA and those who are cool with it.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    I agree with the "don't talk to them" thing. Thanks to the courts its our only option. Please don't think it rude when georg jetson asks "Am I free to go?". It's not because I'm rude... it's just that... I can't trust you. Thank the courts.
    Yep cops take it as a personal insult when we say we can't trust them. They take it personal and want to defend how "trustworthy" they are, yet when the courts have ruled they can lie in the course of an investigation that leaves us no choice to assume they are lying when they talk to us, the best thing to do is not talk to them.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    This ruling in AZ? In AZ? yea, cops can take your guns anytime they want

    I'd bet that this gets overturned by the SC. This was a consensual encounter until the police went to seize the gun, then it became clearly non-consensual, and required, at a minimum, RAS--which the officers did not have.

    Lessons: Even in a consensual encounter, don't let yourself get into a contentious situation with the police. Walk away. If they ask any question related to your behavior, it is an investigative stop, and you are the target. Drop into am-I-free-to-go mode. Make the officers clearly establish that the encounter is a Terry stop. Never let an officer use a consensual encounter to develop RAS or PC.

    Oh, and this guy needs to be jailed for felony stupidity!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I'd bet that this gets overturned by the SC. This was a consensual encounter until the police went to seize the gun, then it became clearly non-consensual, and required, at a minimum, RAS--which the officers did not have.

    Lessons: Even in a consensual encounter, don't let yourself get into a contentious situation with the police. Walk away. If they ask any question related to your behavior, it is an investigative stop, and you are the target. Drop into am-I-free-to-go mode. Make the officers clearly establish that the encounter is a Terry stop. Never let an officer use a consensual encounter to develop RAS or PC.

    Oh, and this guy needs to be jailed for felony stupidity!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    That is the biggest problem and probably one of the most used tools for unconstitutional behavior by our employees. They know that it takes years for these things to be overturned and even if they are it may take months for a judge to rule against them and that there is rarely any punitive sanctions against their actions. The cops know it and the public knows it so most the public not wanting the hassle simply comply.

    Trust me police don't just always let you go when they don't have PC or RAS, many hate having you challenge their authority in that manner and will let you know it.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •