• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Anyone know anything about BP Checkpoints at Newhalem?

olypendrew

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Port Angeles, Washington, USA
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.
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
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.
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
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.
 

David.Car

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
1,264
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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.
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
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.
 

David.Car

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
1,264
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

David.Car wrote:
Jared wrote:
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.
 

bluer1

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
160
Location
, ,
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.
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
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?
 

David.Car

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
1,264
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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...
 

David.Car

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
1,264
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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.
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
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.
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
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.
 

David.Car

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
1,264
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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.
 

grishnav

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
736
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

David.Car

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
1,264
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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
 
Top