davidmcbeth
Banned
Hey, that's probable cause right there! Show your papers now!
Come and get them ... if you can. LOL
Hey, that's probable cause right there! Show your papers now!
Come and get them ... if you can. LOL
Or as the seemingly few true patriots remaining in Texas would say, "Come and take it!"
The rest, here and elsewhere, seem more inclined to a meek muttering of something to the effect of, "You can have my gun and my nuts, just please don't take my sushi from HEB!"
Carry on, patriots.
There were no specific and articulable facts, no reasonable suspicion, and definitely no probable cause that a crime had been, was being, or was about to be committed. Thus, this was clearly yet another unconstitutional Terry stop, which until they are finally adjudicated in every Federal District, appear to still be the pitiful default in a number of states. Of course, since the tyrants are playing with our money, there's no real incentive to play by the rules, otherwise known as the U.S. Constitution.
Kudos to the citizen, sovereign or otherwise, who resisted the arrogant tyrants.
I don't think there needs to be any probable cause.
Like many other freedoms, the good people of TN agreed to have their right-to-bear stolen from them, then sold back to them with the desire that police monitor the process.
(Shrug) If the people of TN don't like the current scope of their enslavement they can easily change it if they stand together.
Didn't need to be? He arguably doesn't need to be an OCer in the first place. Can you perhaps re-try and use some reasoning other than that used constantly by the liberal anti-gun?The problem is the guy didn't need to be one of these a-holes on youtube trying to prove how crooked and stupid cops are.
The wet-panted customer was already unhappy about the presence of a lawfully carried firearm. The cops were already unhappy that they met someone that didn't like the taste of leather. The OCer was already unhappy that these police don't respect citizens' constitutional rights. I don't think producing the permit would have changed any of this. So no, just showing the permit would not have made everyone happy.He COULD have just showed his permit and everyone would have been happy.
Their department policy may say so. Coming to the scene, observing that nothing obviously unlawful or violent is occurring, and hell, maybe even making contact with the caller to inform them of the law, would all be perfectly acceptable. As has been already stated, receiving a call doesn't constitution RAS or PC.The officers were called to the scene by a nervous or scared person and so they need to investigate it.
They don't need to know it either, they need to get RAS or PC or get lost. Simple.The idiot then goes on about saying how he's been carrying for so and so amount of years and he's not a criminal or fugitive or anything of that sort, yet the police don't know that.
Irrelevant. Just like the fact they may lie everyday themselves is irrelevant.I mean, it's not like the police get lied to on a daily basis or anything.
WHOAAAA Nelly, in what way have we concluded that forfeiting constitutionally enumerated rights is the RIGHT thing to do?So instead of doing the RIGHT thing and show them his permit, he tries this route and I'm very very happy to see him get handcuffed.
"Us"? I'm an individual. You're an individual. The guy in the video is an individual. Our rights are individual rights, too. I believe I'd sooner and more gladly associate with the guy in the video than with you. The strategy of restoring our rights by slowly and shyly exercising them while blending into the background as much as possible, hoping that our rights won't be subjugated just by virtue of not being noticed, is not a good one. A better strategy is to set high expectations for law enforcement and to assert your rights confidently and openly.Like someone said. These people give us a bad name.
What people is that again? As with several other southern states I'd imagine TN has a general handgun prohibition that was passed shortly following the civil war, and an exception for licensees that was created just recently.
If you mean the good people of TN in the present tense then no, I don't believe any of them did "agree to" the unconstitutional prohibition. This is a case of one long dead generation ruling future generations. Jefferson had some interesting thoughts about that. The earth belongs to the living.
"To verbally refuse a search is an exercise of one's rights. It isn't a provocation. That ... police officials see it as the latter is telling -- and a problem."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...fusing-a-search-is-a-right-not-a-provocation/
H/T John Wesley Hall FourthAmendment.com
I must respectfully disagree, citing Tennessee Code 39-17-1307. Unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon.There were no specific and articulable facts, no reasonable suspicion, and definitely no probable cause that a crime had been, was being, or was about to be committed. Thus, this was clearly yet another unconstitutional Terry stop, which until they are finally adjudicated in every Federal District, appear to still be the pitiful default in a number of states. Of course, since the tyrants are playing with our money, there's no real incentive to play by the rules, otherwise known as the U.S. Constitution.
Kudos to the citizen, sovereign or otherwise, who resisted the arrogant tyrants.
Looks like a reasonable suspicion of a violation of a particular crime.(a) (1) A person commits an offense who carries with the intent to go armed a firearm, a knife with a blade length exceeding four inches (4²), or a club.
I have personally been told by a Lehi City police officer that "the only people who stand up for their Constitutional Rights are criminals". Very sad was I when I heard this!
It all depends on how the laws are written. Carrying a weapon with intent to go armed is a crime in Tennessee in one section of law with a defense against it in the following section. If a carrier does not employ/use/defend his actions with that section an officer isn't required to negate all possibilities before making a case with what he sees. There's a certain amount of citizen responsibility involved in the process.Isn't TN an "OC only with a permit" state? I would think that one would have to present their permit when asked if so.
I must respectfully disagree, citing Tennessee Code 39-17-1307. Unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon.
Looks like a reasonable suspicion of a violation of a particular crime.
It all depends on how the laws are written. Carrying a weapon with intent to go armed is a crime in Tennessee in one section of law with a defense against it in the following section. If a carrier does not employ/use/defend his actions with that section an officer isn't required to negate all possibilities before making a case with what he sees. There's a certain amount of citizen responsibility involved in the process.
In Georgia (another "OC only with a permit" state) the mere carrying of arms is not prima facie evidence of a crime and Georgia law makes it illegal for officers to detain a carrier for the sole purpose of investigating whether such person has a weapons carry license.
Absent evidence that a crime has been committed, is being committing, or is about to be committed, the mere act of a citizen participating in what is an otherwise lawful activity does not and cannot serve as a basis for reasonable suspicion.
For example, I'm sure that each TN municipality, indeed, the state itself, have laws that prohibit the operation of a motor vehicle upon public roads without a valid drivers license, yet absent the aforementioned evidence to the contrary, the presumption must always be one of innocence, rather than guilt, which prevents law enforcement from stopping motor vehicle operators merely to check for a valid license.
Absent evidence that a crime has been committed, is being committing, or is about to be committed, the mere act of a citizen participating in what is an otherwise lawful activity does not and cannot serve as a basis for reasonable suspicion.
For example, I'm sure that each TN municipality, indeed, the state itself, have laws that prohibit the operation of a motor vehicle upon public roads without a valid drivers license, yet absent the aforementioned evidence to the contrary, the presumption must always be one of innocence, rather than guilt, which prevents law enforcement from stopping motor vehicle operators merely to check for a valid license.
This guy cooked his own goose. Tenn law is clear, if you're asked to produce your license, you have to produce your license.
I don't like their law, but it's the law.
Pardon, but what part of seeing someone carrying a firearm when carrying a firearm with intent to armed doesn't look like a violation of the state law making going armed armed with a firearm a crime?
This guy cooked his own goose. Tenn law is clear, if you're asked to produce your license, you have to produce your license.
I don't like their law, but it's the law.