Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: NRA compromising strategy really means "beware" to gun owners

  1. #1
    Regular Member AB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    ACTIVIST Cheyenne, Wyoming
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    ...We must no longer compromise the Bill of Rights. To understand how this mentality has infected Wyoming, earlier this year in a discussion of concealed-carry legislation in Wyoming,Matthew HuntingtonfromGadsden Legal and Mark Spungin from the state level NRA group WSSA, both left me with the impression that it was perfectly acceptable to support legislation that has a "disarm the citizens" clause...

    http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2...-to-gun-owners

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    inform the peace officer that he is carrying a concealed deadly weapon...The peace officer may secure the concealed deadly weapon, or direct that it be secured, during the duration of the contact between the person and the peace officer
    I hate to ruin your rant but the courts are never, ever going to require that the cops allow you to remain armed in their presence. Just the way it is.

    I don't especially like codification of this kind of thing, but there are far more important things to worry about.



  3. #3
    Regular Member AB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    ACTIVIST Cheyenne, Wyoming
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    Sounds like you have given up and bowed down to the Judicial Kingship.

    In Wyoming a law abiding citizen has no duty to disarm.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    AB wrote:
    Sounds like you have given up and bowed down to the Judicial Kingship.

    In Wyoming a law abiding citizen has no duty to disarm.
    It would be nice if in the real world what the constitution says is what it means. It just does not work that way, and there just is not a way to fix that problem.

    You may have no duty to disarm, but my guess is that if a cop tells you to, and you decide not to, it is you who will pay the price, not the cop. Thats reality too. The courts have given LE virtually all the power in the relationship between LE and citizen.



  5. #5
    Regular Member AB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    ACTIVIST Cheyenne, Wyoming
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    Why are you even on this forum?

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Part of the problem here is that the discussion is a little imprecise.

    There is a distinction between a so-called duty-to-inform, and a warrantless weapon seizure (disarm).

    Aseizure is governed by the 4th Amendment and related court opinions. In this case, sincethe discussionis about weapons, Terry v Ohio1 and subsequent opinions based on it apply here. Ina nutshell,cops first need reasonable suspicion regarding a crimeto seize (detain) the person before the cops are legally authorized to searchfor and seize a weapon for officer safety or safety of others in the vicinity. If there is no reasonable suspicion of crime, then there is no authority to take involuntary action against the person (detain), and no authority to seize a gun.

    Regarding a so-called duty-to-notify, if there are no legal grounds for a seizure, or no seizure occurring, there is no reason to notifyduring the "contact" (the word used in the article's quote).As a side note, notice the quote says "contact", not seizure, detention, etc. Nicely vague word where precision is needed.

    If there is a seizure of the person, then Terry applies and the cop, if he is reasonably suspicious the person is armed and presently dangerous, may search for and temporarily seize anyweapons. So, no need for a notification.In short,not-dangerous people aren't going to shoot the cop. And criminals aren't going to notify the cop anyway.The only thing a so-called duty-to-notify does is open the door to an automatic weapon seizure solely for the cop to go on a fishing expedition for a stolen gun by running its serial number.

    The simple fact that we have a number ofreports on this forum of police who did not seize guns automatically during traffic stops tells the tale. Mere possession is not automatically dangerous; if it were, almost all cops would always seize guns.

    One thing that is missing from the article isquotes of actual statutes supported by the NRA. To know for sure, one wouldreally have to see the statute.

    But, I can say I disagree with any NRA support for a so-called duty to notify.

    It would be telling if additionallanguage in a bill was refused thatsaid a gun seizedas the result of a "notification" cannothave its serial number run, cannot be damaged in any way, etc. And, that it can be seized only if there is additional objective indications of dangerousness on the part of the detainee.

    1. Terry v Ohio. Also,be sure to read the dissent. It is rather enlightening. The opinion is here:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...2_0001_ZO.html

    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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    Well done. The Academy does not teach that if a firearm is present that you must automatically go into "super cop" mode.Of course inevery encounter with some one, the LEO should assume that the person is armed.

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622

    Post imported post

    AB wrote:
    Why are you even on this forum?
    It is called exchanging ideas and information - open discussion - and welcomed here.
    Many different points of view are good. Preaching to the choir and singing the same hymn have minimal benefits - sounds good but one learns little new.

    Yata hey


    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    AB wrote:
    Why are you even on this forum?
    It is called exchanging ideas and information - open discussion - and welcomed here. Many different points of view are good. Preaching to the choir and singing the same hymn have minimal benefits - sounds good but one learns little new.

    Yata hey
    The dismissive reference may have been to the discordant note in the threnody to the RKABA.

  10. #10
    Regular Member AB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    ACTIVIST Cheyenne, Wyoming
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    AB wrote:
    Why are you even on this forum?
    It is called exchanging ideas and information - open discussion - and welcomed here.
    Many different points of view are good. Preaching to the choir and singing the same hymn have minimal benefits - sounds good but one learns little new.

    Yata hey



    You are right but...

    ...courts are never, ever going to require that the cops allow you to remain armed in their presence... and ...but there are far more important things to worry about..

    Might be of the dynamics in Illinois but itis entirely different from Wyoming.

    Everyoneon this forumshould be looking at how these same incremental steps have screwed their own state up and not imply thattheir rules apply in Wyoming.

    In Wyoming most cops are not scared of armed citizens, to introduce legislation that breeds this type of attitude is stupid. Just look at this exchange between myself and a state trooper -http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum58/24454.html

    These inform and disarm laws are unconstitutional in Wyoming and I would argue that it leads to gun registration, take a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKyoP9iEVVY

    Even in Texas earlier this year,the legislators had to "re-think"this and removesimilar inform clause languageafter someone was killed for a failure to inform. A little different since Texas law required one to"display"their CCW permit to the officer asthe methodof informing.

    Texas HB 410 struck this following clause from the law: "fails to display a license as required by Section 411.205;"in esence taking the teeth away andbeing used againstarmed citizens.http://www.statesurge.com/bills/hb-410-texas-438401

    As far as Open carry in states that allow, it has been held in the "courts" that in itself does not give an officer the ability to "articulate" probable cause to disarm or search.




Posting Permissions

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