Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Anyone know anything about BP Checkpoints at Newhalem?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Port Angeles, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    Welcome to the new WA. The state constitution prohibits these sorts of checkpoints, but the feds get away with it. These are the jobs that Norm Dicks brought to the Olympic Peninsula.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    Time to do the same as the guy down in AZ with the checkpoints there.

    Don't answer any questions, immediatly go to the "Am I being detained" they need RAS or it is illegal detainment.

    Checkpoint USA

    http://www.youtube.com/user/CheckpointUSA?ob=1


    Edit: Don't forget voice recorder. And the first video on that link is very entertaining.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    olypendrew wrote:
    Welcome to the new WA. The state constitution prohibits these sorts of checkpoints, but the feds get away with it. These are the jobs that Norm Dicks brought to the Olympic Peninsula.
    BP is a federal agency, not bound by the Washington State Constitution.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    David.Car wrote:
    Time to do the same as the guy down in AZ with the checkpoints there.

    Don't answer any questions, immediatly go to the "Am I being detained" they need RAS or it is illegal detainment.

    Checkpoint USA

    http://www.youtube.com/user/CheckpointUSA?ob=1


    Edit: Don't forget voice recorder. And the first video on that link is very entertaining.
    You need to check your facts, especially before you give bad advice. RAS is not needed to detain someone at primary for brief questioning.

    Some or mere suspicion is needed tosecondary someonefor immigration violations.

    RAS is needed to secondary someone for any other crime.

    The SCOTUS case is United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 US 543 (1976)


    I'm not supporting the checkpoints but this is off topic and has nothing to do with open carry and the BP isn't there to take your guns away.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    Jared wrote:
    I'm not supporting the checkpoints but this is off topic and has nothing to do with open carry and the BP isn't there to take your guns away.
    Of course they aren't but a BP checkpoint inside the borders of the US is just one more way of evolving into a police state.

    And these patrols are an illegal stop and seizure of your persons and your vehicle. You do not have to answer any of their questions, and if they detain you because of that it is illegal and a violation of your constitutional rights. Now that is what this website boils down to in the end. Your rights and making sure they are protected and not taken away.

    It states in the border patrols own field manual that they may not detain any persons without RAS that the persons is an illegal alien. Again refusing to answer there questions does not provide that RAS.

    And you want to bring up US vs Martinez-Fuerte... than here is a quote

    "It is agreed that checkpoint stops are "seizures" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The defendants contend primarily that the routine stopping of vehicles at a checkpoint is invalid because Brignoni-Ponce must be read as proscribing any stops in the absence of reasonable suspicion. Sifuentes alternatively contends in No. 75-5387 that routine checkpoint stops are permissible only when the practice has the advance judicial authorization of a warrant."

    This issue has nothing to do with firearms, it has to do with every americans constitutional freedoms being breached.

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," no need to name source

    "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    I understand all that, but it's still off topic and it removes other RKBA related info from the WA header on the main forum page.

    There are plenty of freedom issues, abolition of medicare, social security, federal reserve, income tax, out overseas empire etc. but none of these issues are RKBA related so I manage to avoid discussing those issues out of respect for Mike and John's rules; therefore, I'm just asking the same in return.

    THR is a subpar forum and was similar to packing.org. OC.org is the most respected in my view because of strict adherence to the rules of staying on topic and citing sources.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    Jared wrote:
    staying on topic
    This website has many many threads that are not about OC. This is another example of peoples rights be violated on, and I think that is the true point of this website.

    Besides, OCDO does have a "General Discussion" forum for "discussions that are somewhat off-topic" so just consider this a WA only general discussion post.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762

    Post imported post

    "at primary"
    "to secondary someone"

    You need to define these terms.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    David.Car wrote:
    Jared wrote:
    SNIP
    SNIP Again refusing to answer there questions does not provide that RAS.
    I'm not familiar with immigration law at the border; but I'mthinking that inside the US even an illegal immigrant could not be compelled to answerthe citizenship question. I'm basing this onthe right against self-incrimination.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    What they need to do, is set up a "Checkpoint" in the south Everett Home depot Parking lot. They would be much more successful and they wouldn't harass so many legal citizens. But that would be too easy now wouldn't it. Shooting fish in a barrel?

    Wait, hold on a second, what about Yakima? Do they really think Illegal immigrants will be heading for the Okanogan region on HWY 20? Did they pick the most unpopulated area so they wouldn't expect to catch anyone or what?

    I'm confused.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    So what does the subtitle have to do with anything? "Beware: Accidentally carrying through the ... checkpoints"? Who cares. It isn't illegal. They can't arrest you and they probably don't care. Why would anyone be worried about carrying through the checkpoints?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    So what does the subtitle have to do with anything? "Beware: Accidentally carrying through the ... checkpoints"? Who cares. It isn't illegal. They can't arrest you and they probably don't care. Why would anyone be worried about carrying through the checkpoints?
    The subtitle has to do with somone stating that the checkpoint occurs on a section of road that is in an area classifies as a national park. National parks have those pesky different rules about firearms...

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    I'm not familiar with immigration law at the border; but I'mthinking that inside the US even an illegal immigrant could not be compelled to answerthe citizenship question. I'm basing this onthe right against self-incrimination.
    This is true. That is why you are forced to state your citizenship and prove it before entering the country. You have no requirement to do so once you are in the borders, which is what make these stops fricking ridiculous.

    These checkpoints are almost exactly the same thing that was done by the germans, many of it is done under the same premise of national security.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    deanf wrote:
    "at primary"
    "to secondary someone"

    You need to define these terms.


    The case does a pretty good job at explaining everything.

    Primary is where vehicles stop at the checkpoint, SCOTUS said zero suspicion is needed.

    Once at primary, some or mere suspicion is needed to have the car pull off to the side for a an inspection for immigration violations.

    If the primary agent has RAS that any other crime with in his or her authority is being committed, then they may be sent to the secondary area (off the main road of travel) for further investigation.

    Like I said before I don't agree with it, I'm just explaining it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    David.Car wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    I'm not familiar with immigration law at the border; but I'mthinking that inside the US even an illegal immigrant could not be compelled to answerthe citizenship question. I'm basing this onthe right against self-incrimination.
    This is true. That is why you are forced to state your citizenship and prove it before entering the country. You have no requirement to do so once you are in the borders, which is what make these stops fricking ridiculous.

    These checkpoints are almost exactly the same thing that was done by the germans, many of it is done under the same premise of national security.
    These checkpoints have been around since 1924. They are not new, maybe they are new in Washington, I don't know the answer to that.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    Jared wrote:
    These checkpoints have been around since 1924. They are not new, maybe they are new in Washington, I don't know the answer to that.
    They were very rare and limited for a number of years until the BS SCOTUS loophole they have been using since the 70's. But the number of checkpoints has always been very minimal until the last 5 years or so.

    But again one thing is for certain. They are stopping people on public roadways with no individual RAS.

    And people are not taking this lightly. The Dept of Homeland Security has had complaints over double for the last year, a large portion coming from check point incidents. The DHS has also issued reports stating that many of their emplopyees are being brought up on charges and disciplined for crossing the line at these checkpoints.

    Many of these BP employees don't seem to know the laws or their own employee regulations regarding what can happen at these checkpoints. There is a great video online that is only a couple minutes long that shows a California checkpoint illegally detain a vehicle with 4 passengers because they refuse to answer the US citizen question.

    In it, a passenger in the vehicle who is a former US marine asks "are we being detained" and the BP agent immediatly says "Yes". He than does not provide any RAS for the detainment but merely states they can not leave until they answer the question.

    That is messed up, it is way way way wrong, it is a DEFINITE violation of a constitutionaly protected right, and I am more than willing to put money on that BP agent not working that location anymore from the resulting video.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    I thought only the actual parks had federal laws banning firearms... You're telling me I now have to know about the all the historic sites and recreation areas and everything else as well?

    Freaking heck.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    grishnav wrote:
    I thought only the actual parks had federal laws banning firearms... You're telling me I now have to know about the all the historic sites and recreation areas and everything else as well?

    Freaking heck.
    Sometimes roads run through national parks without you having to go past a booth saying welcome to national park yadda yadda

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue, WA, ,
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    There are several videos on YouTube about the WA checkpoints.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8depAXJ6M4

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    jchen012 wrote:
    There are several videos on YouTube about the WA checkpoints.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8depAXJ6M4
    While I am not discounting their concerns over the checkpoint. I have two thoughts.

    1. I have no sympathy for illegal aliens being caught and removed from the United States. I don't care that it breaks up families, by putting drunk drivers in jail families are being broken up.

    2. Would these "civil rights" activist be protesting over Washington State's unconstutional treatment of non-citizens and firearms. I somehow doubt it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    In most places you can drive around the checkpoint. There is no law that says you cannot drive around the bastards.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I am not familiar with the precise location of these checkpoints but there are 'strategic' locations in Washington that cannot be circumvented, especially around the boarders North and West.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    Jared wrote:
    1. I have no sympathy for illegal aliens being caught and removed from the United States.
    I believe illegal immigrants are the number 1 problem this country faces right now. I also strongly believe they are one of the leading contributing factors to the current economic break down. (See articles about over 5,000,000 fraudulent mortgages done by illegal aliens)

    I want them out of this country more than most people, but I see nothing to gain by finding them through conducting illegal suspicious-less checkpoints that violates every Americans rights.

    There has been a long line of things in history that have been done under the claim of national security, or being good for the people, that are done through means that violate laws/rights. They pretty much never end well, usually leading to even more rights violations.

    Stopping every vehicle without suspicion for illegal immigrants is only 1 step above going door to door and searching your home for illegal immigrants.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tulalip, Washington, USA
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    WOW!!!!!! I had no idea, this is really scary. I will never travel to Mexico again partly because of their check points but mostly because of their thug stile tactics. Your papers please or you will be arrested and sent to the camp.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •