• 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.

The wild, wild West . . . of Tacoma?

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
imported post

This gig Harbor cop might fit right in with the following video clip from Shreveport La.

http://www.conservativedrink.com/media/GloverInterview-060809-Video.asp?roi=echo3-5996103639-4033469-b77cab63cb12ddb294f0a165610acf24&






Dear Craig,

A few months ago, the National Association for Gun Rights first broke this incredible tale out of Shreveport, Louisiana.

At the time, no other gun rights organization had touched the story. But when we tracked down the victim for an interview, we couldn't believe what we heard, and we immediately sent out a nationwide alert.

The story went viral overnight.

If this tale of government abuse moves you, send it to a friend or family member to get the word out.



[line]


Welcome to Shreveport: Your rights are now suspended.According to Cedric Glover, mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, his cops "have a power that [. . .] the President of these Unites States does not have": His cops can take away your rights.

And would you like to guess which rights he has in mind?

Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who got pulled over for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck -- and had his gun confiscated.

While the officer who pulled him over says Baillio failed to use his turn signal, the only questions he had for Baillio concerned guns: Whether he had a gun, where the gun was, and if he was a member of a pro-gun organization.

No requests for a driver's licence, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration -- and no discussion of a turn signal.

Accordingly, Baillio told the officer the truth, which led the police officer to search his car without permission and confiscate his gun.

However, not only does Louisiana law allow residents to drive with loaded weapons in their vehicles, but Mr. Baillio possessed a concealed carry license!

What does such behavior demonstrate, other than transparent political profiling -- going so far as to use the infamous Department of Homeland Security report on "Americans of a rightwing persuasion" as a how-to guidebook, no less?

Mr. Baillio made no secret of his political affiliations: An American flag centers a wide flourish of pro-freedom stickers and decals on his back windshield.

In fact, when Baillio asked the officer if everyone he pulls over gets the same treatment, the officer said no and pointed to the back of his truck.

Baillio phoned Mayor Glover to complain about this "suspension of rights" only to find that his city's morbidly obese "commander in chief" was elated at the story: According to Glover, Baillio got "served well, protected well, and even got a consideration that maybe [he] should not have gotten."

Thankfully, Mr. Baillio recorded a good bit of that phone call. You can watch a video with the transcriptions here. I've reproduced a chunk of the call below:


Baillio: (in the context of being asked about the presence of a gun) Well, I answered that question honestly, and he disarmed me.

Glover: Which would be an appropriate and proper action, sir. The fact that you gave the correct answer -- it simply means that you did what it is you were supposed to have done, and that is to give that weapon to the police officer so he could appropriately place it in a place where it would not be a threat to you, to him, or to anyone in the general public.

[. . .]

Glover: My direction to you is that, had you chosen not to properly identify the fact that you had a weapon and directed that officer to where that weapon was located; had you been taken from the vehicle, and the officer, in the interest of his safety, chose to secure you in a safe position, and then looked, found, and determined that you did, in fact, have a weapon...then, sir, you would have faced additional, [inaudible], and more severe criminal sanctions.

Baillio: So what you're saying is: I give up all my rights to keep and bear arms if I'm stopped by the police: Is that correct?

Glover: Sir, you have no right, when you have been pulled over by a police officer for a potential criminal offense [which would be what?! - DB] to stand there with your weapon at your side in your hand [Baillio's weapon was nowhere near his side or his hand, and Glover knew that. - DB] because of your second amendment rights, sir. That does not mean at that point your second amendment right has been taken away; it means at that particular point in time, it has been suspended.​
Will Grigg from ProLibertate, an excellent freedom blog, has this to say:


According to Glover, a police officer may properly disarm any civilian at any time, and the civilian's duty is to surrender his gun -- willingly, readily, cheerfully, without cavil or question.

From Glover's perspective, it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state's uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself.​
NAGR spoke with Mr. Baillio, and he told us that he's in the process of securing the official procedures and codes for firearm handling and private property confiscation for the Shreveport police department.

So far, the city has been half-heartedly cooperating with him.

"I felt sick," Baillio told NAGR. "My uncles didn't die for this country so I could surrender my rights like a wimp. I felt terrible. I was just thinking of all that my family has done for freedom in this nation -- including dying -- and here they are disarming me at a traffic stop."



[line]


N-5996103639-9CAC0A195E1B9CF84996ED069E04934E.jpg
 

Aryk45XD

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
513
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

WOW! I was going to break that story down and comment when I got home today. After reading the recent posts, I have decided that Dr. Trigger is my new hero for the month and has a great lead for next month. I cannot even remember what my points were... I'm speachless.
 

Bo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
123
Location
, ,
imported post

This guy's opinion is, or should be, an embarassment to the entire West/South Sound law enforcement community. Good cops worry more about the weapons they don't see, in the hands of the bad guys, not the guns displayed by law abiding citizens.

Never encountered a felon carrying a handgun -- in a holster -- openly in public. Never enountered a felon even using a holster (not even a cheap nylon Uncle Mike's).
 

Aryk45XD

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
513
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

geojohn wrote:
If the problem is the inability to pass the background check for a concealed weapons permit,...

What's a "concealed weapons permit"?
Welcome to the board. WA doesn't have a "weapons permit" as some states do. They cover weapons in addition to handguns... or so I have been told ny the firearms instructor. I think I read it somewhere too.
 

Machoduck

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
566
Location
Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
imported post

I think that what geojohn was referring to is the fact that WA doesn't have any "CWP", they have a "CPL". Utah has a "CFP" but that's not what our supposed cop said. I don't know what he meant and neither does he. I don't believe he's even a cop if he thinks we grant "CWPs".

Welcome geojohn!

MD
 

Wheelgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
426
Location
Kingston, Washington, USA
imported post

gogodawgs wrote:
Ya.....

What Trigger Dr. said.....

just sayin'

Beautiful Tr. Doc. I hope he listens...

I don't quite get the part about the testing. Is he saying that having a weapon on your hip visible to the public in some way causes you to be more unstable and therefore requires a higher level of mental testing and training than concealed carry?

And the bit about the "anachronistic" is really funny. I see people on the street with facial tatoos, pins in their lips and rings through their eyebrows and their hair in "dreds" (i.e. Primitively unkempt) in public. That went out of fashion about the time we stopped dancing around fires and making sacrifices to the moon.

His being a police officer, if anything, reduces my belief in his opinion. I know that officers want open carry only to apply to them as one of the perks of the job (like getting to drive fast, etc). If everyone carries openly, then the pistol on his hip is less impressive. Maybe he has a "small" problem.

And the whole obsessional writing about the moment he draws his cellphone makes him sound like a coward. Given that OC people are ultra law-abiding, he is really worrying about the wrong crowd. If he is that fearful that the best amongst the general population is going to suddenly draw and "go off" at any moment, maybe he should look for another job.

I hear the Dept of Education is hiring, and they have shotguns.
 

Machoduck

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
566
Location
Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
imported post

Attention Police officer Brian O’Neill of Gig Harbor:

If any of our members are harassed by you regarding the legal carrying of firearms your bias against that right is now a matter of public record. I'm certain that others beside myself have kept an html file of your ranting in the TNT. It should serve as prima-facie evidence of bias against a specific right at the least and prepare the way for a deprivation of rights under color of authority law suit in Federal Court per 42USC Chapter 21 sec 1983.

I further think that your superiors should be made aware of your attitude toward the law. The necessity of law in connection with freedom goes back to the times of Abraham and Moses, not just to 1789. If you have carried out your bias in actual law enforcement you have violated your oath of office. There are many among us who clearly take a much more serious view toward upholding The Constitution than do you. I suggest that you read our forum to see how much time, effort, and emotion we've spent on the conflict that sometimes occurs between our gun rights and the private property rights of stores we would frequent.

MD
 

erps

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
265
Location
, ,
imported post

If any of our members are harassed by you regarding the legal carrying of firearms your bias against that right is now a matter of public record. I'm certain that others beside myself have kept an html file of your ranting in the TNT. It should serve as prima-facie evidence of bias against a specific right at the least and prepare the way for a deprivation of rights under color of authority law suit in Federal Court per 42USC Chapter 21 sec 1983.
Touche`
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
imported post

Since posting my e mail to Officer O'Neil, I have had correspondence with him.

I normally would not post the contents of an e mail, but I think this one is the exception.







[align=justify]



Well, sir, I knew I was stepping into the mouth of the lion when I wrote this. Please keep in mind that I wrote it as a citizen not as a police officer. The opinions, obviously, do not reflect my agency's views. My opinions do not color my performance as a police officer, either. However, I wrote the article in response to the looks on the faces of people, including my own families, when we view people on the street openly displaying firearms. Just because a law allow a behavior does not mean everyone should indulge. I can think of many examples of those freedoms that I bet you would find distasteful if you were to see in public.

Thanks for your comments.

Brian

and another one






[align=justify]



Hey Jim,

I am sure we would have plenty to talk about, and I am very comfortable with many friends and colleagues who disagree with my views. I appreciate your viewpoint as well as respect your training. While I understand that 911 is not an answer to an imminent situation, we do have concealed carry laws, and these are in place to help weed out those who can not legally carry. Felons, unstable individuals, etc. then, can openly carry without being hassled because there is no legitimate reason for stopping and questioning them.

As to the legitimate loss of rights, I would only say that it is legal for a man to walk along in front of a school at lunchtime in a G string with his hand down his pants. But should he? No, I say. This is an affront to the public. So to is an unknown person carrying a weapon in public when the citizens, in 2010, are fearful of his/her actions.

Good chat, Jim. Thanks again.

Brian

I left him with an invitation to peruse our forum to find out what his opinions generate.
[/align]
[/align]
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

Well,

I hope he does read the forum. And I challenge his notion that he, his family, or others see and have 'looks on their faces'. I simply find that to be in the minority. I have posted on here many times that when I go to the store that 99.99% of the people in the store with me DO NOT see the firearm. I think that when someone who speaks against OC because of this visual effect is making it up.

Again, I hope he engages this forum and learns the truth.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

How dare he equate me in my dockers and a polo shirt, nice shoes, belt, leather holster, Sig229 engaging in a public setting such as a coffee shop in a legal manner with that of the behavior he describes.
As to the legitimate loss of rights, I would only say that it is legal for a man to walk along in front of a school at lunchtime in a G string with his hand down his pants. But should he? No, I say. This is an affront to the public. So to is an unknown person carrying a weapon in public when the citizens, in 2010, are fearful of his/her actions.


Actually I would tend to think that I could find an RCW that states the above is illegal.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.88.010




[/b](1) A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm. The act of breastfeeding or expressing breast milk is not indecent exposure.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

gogodawgs wrote:
Well,

SNIP: 99.99% of the people in the store with me DO NOT see the firearm. I think that when someone who speaks against OC because of this visual effect is making it up.

Again, I hope he engages this forum and learns the truth.
+1= 15 + years here and have never seen anyone OC unless I pass a mirror and see my reflection.
 

Nosrac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
305
Location
Lakewood, Washington, USA
imported post

"I wrote the article in response to the looks on the faces of people, including my own families, when we view people on the street openly displaying firearms"

As a police officer and I'm assuming a father wouldn't he have better educated his family regarding firearms?

I would imagine most everyone here has and thus no issue with OC.

OT: My 8yo son and I are going to the range after school. His pick for the days afterschool activities, no prompting from me. :)
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

Nosrac wrote:
"I wrote the article in response to the looks on the faces of people, including my own families, when we view people on the street openly displaying firearms"

As a police officer and I'm assuming a father wouldn't he have better educated his family regarding firearms?

I would imagine most everyone here has and thus no issue with OC.

OT: My 8yo son and I are going to the range after school. His pick for the days afterschool activities, no prompting from me. :)

Correct. I have a 15 and 17 year old daughter. Since they were born they have been educated on firearms. If they see someone carrying a firearm, OC, CC, any carry way, they would not panic, not even tug on my arm anymore and point it out. 6 months ago when I started to OC, I was with my youngest for an hour in Fred Meyer. At the hour mark I asked her, well has anyone even noticed? Her response was "notice what?" She hadn't even noticed that I was OC! She is so used to seeing me with a firearm it made no difference to anything whatsoever!

Like I stated in a previous comment, I believe he embelished that point and it is made up.
 

Aryk45XD

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
513
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

Agreed. My roommate and I have been carrying for over a year. His kids know people carry for pertection, but still point out people OCing and tell us "they are protecting us." They still point them out at ages 2 and 4, but know there are people to be aware of. They regularly get "tested" out in public and around the house.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
imported post

gogodawgs wrote:
How dare he equate me in my dockers and a polo shirt, nice shoes, belt, leather holster, Sig229 engaging in a public setting such as a coffee shop in a legal manner with that of the behavior he describes.
As to the legitimate loss of rights, I would only say that it is legal for a man to walk along in front of a school at lunchtime in a G string with his hand down his pants. But should he? No, I say. This is an affront to the public. So to is an unknown person carrying a weapon in public when the citizens, in 2010, are fearful of his/her actions.


Actually I would tend to think that I could find an RCW that states the above is illegal.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.88.010



Snip:
[/b](1) The act of breastfeeding or expressing breast milk is not indecent exposure.
Any bodily fluids are considered a bio hazard. This should not be legal, especially since the little brats block our view of said breast with their noggins.
 
Top