Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Constitution vs. Firearm Laws.

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Constitution vs. Firearm Laws.

    I just don't understand. Since the Constitution, in our interest, the RKBA, is the supreme law, then why is it that LEO, try to enforce laws that run contrary to the supreme laws. IMO, a LEO would enforce the greater of the two, but this isn't the case. Why?

    I was at the gas station tonight, and saw a LEO that I know from around here, and we said Hi. As soon as I left, he followed me, and as I had expected, he pulled me over. I wasn't sure why at first, he knew I knew he was behind me, only going 5 over, so I figured it had to have been an OC thing. He told me to show him my hands, so I put them up. (yep, gun thing) He greeted me by my first name, and I immediately disclosed, then asked what's up? He said he thought I was revoked, and asked for my CPL, which I gave him. He asked why I had been revoked, and I explained that I had only been suspended for 6 months because I was falsely accused of CC on a school property, a my word against theirs thing. He asked for my gun, so I gave it to him, and he told me that he wanted to check my CPL status and as long as it checked out, everything would be fine. He came back with my ID, CPL and gun in hand, gave it back to me, and wished me well, I put the mag in, chambered a round, he gave me back the 1st round, and we wished each other well. He told me that he would go tell the others that I was good to go. I do believe he had RAS, because the last time we met, I was suspended. I don't have a problem at all with anything he did, or how he did it, except that the constitution says that I have a RKBA (I feel that includes your car), the police are sworn to uphold the constitution, yet the police are out here not enforcing the supreme laws, but the lower ones that run contradictory to it. I understand that rights are not absolute and all, and reasonable restrictions, but not laws that do nothing to benifit people, stop crime, and run against the constitution.

    Sorry for the rant, I just don't get it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, ,
    Posts
    21
    I, too, have a great deal of difficulty with "laws" that define "crimes" where there are no victims, "laws" that obviously violate the Constitutional and natural rights of sovereign American citizens, prohibitionist "laws" that define what some government employees have decided you shouldn't put in your own body, etc. The American dream is freedom....freedom FROM some hired government lackeys being able to arbitrarily decide for you how you should live your life when you are not interfering with the rights of others. It is WAY past time for our nation to return to the Constitutional roots of limited government and maximum individual freedoms.

  3. #3
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    I just don't understand. Since the Constitution, in our interest, the RKBA, is the supreme law, then why is it that LEO, try to enforce laws that run contrary to the supreme laws. IMO, a LEO would enforce the greater of the two, but this isn't the case. Why?

    I was at the gas station tonight, and saw a LEO that I know from around here, and we said Hi. As soon as I left, he followed me, and as I had expected, he pulled me over. I wasn't sure why at first, he knew I knew he was behind me, only going 5 over, so I figured it had to have been an OC thing. He told me to show him my hands, so I put them up. (yep, gun thing) He greeted me by my first name, and I immediately disclosed, then asked what's up? He said he thought I was revoked, and asked for my CPL, which I gave him. He asked why I had been revoked, and I explained that I had only been suspended for 6 months because I was falsely accused of CC on a school property, a my word against theirs thing. He asked for my gun, so I gave it to him, and he told me that he wanted to check my CPL status and as long as it checked out, everything would be fine. He came back with my ID, CPL and gun in hand, gave it back to me, and wished me well, I put the mag in, chambered a round, he gave me back the 1st round, and we wished each other well. He told me that he would go tell the others that I was good to go. I do believe he had RAS, because the last time we met, I was suspended. I don't have a problem at all with anything he did, or how he did it, except that the constitution says that I have a RKBA (I feel that includes your car), the police are sworn to uphold the constitution, yet the police are out here not enforcing the supreme laws, but the lower ones that run contradictory to it. I understand that rights are not absolute and all, and reasonable restrictions, but not laws that do nothing to benifit people, stop crime, and run against the constitution.

    Sorry for the rant, I just don't get it.
    I dunno man, it seems this could go two different ways based on what you provided.

    Let me first say up front that I am not up to speed with your state's laws and regulations so I'm only going by what you posted.

    Personally, it seems like he was under the impression that you were still suspended and simply wanted to follow up on that. It does seem, and you say as much, that he had RAS to at least make the stop and clear the matter up. Hey, at least he did it away from the gas station, saving you from the public's peering eyes and the embarrassment that can come from such an incident :P

    I'm no fan of over-active LEOs pumped up on too many donuts, energy drinks, and a false sense of civic duty which compels them to make idiotic stops which only escalate simple matters into ridiculous over-blown incidents. Perhaps we hear and highlight too many of those incidents and not enough of the smart plays LEOs make every day. At face value, it seems to me that the stop was not only legal, but also fairly smart on the part of the LEO. Once things were cleared up, everything was returned to you. At least he didn't do the "you can come down to the station tomorrow and pick up your gun" thing...

    I can understand the urge to rant against violations of the 2A, but in this case, I feel his actions were justified and posed no violations to anyone's constitutional right as spelled out in the 2A.

    On the other hand, there still remain many cases in which people's rights are indeed violated by over reaching legislation and "eager" LEOs who operate under a false sense of importance which can and do translate into major violations. I just don't believe this is one of those cases

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southwest, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291
    In response to your comment 'I don't understand', it's simple.

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    We've been asleep far too long and now have a tremendous amount of work to be done to take back the powers that were taken from us. It's called 'tacit approval' - if nobody says anything, then inch by inch the gov't, over time, has gently eased power away from us and to them.

    Carry on

  5. #5
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    I just don't understand. Since the Constitution, in our interest, the RKBA, is the supreme law, then why is it that LEO, try to enforce laws that run contrary to the supreme laws. IMO, a LEO would enforce the greater of the two, but this isn't the case. Why?

    I was at the gas station tonight, and saw a LEO that I know from around here, and we said Hi. As soon as I left, he followed me, and as I had expected, he pulled me over. I wasn't sure why at first, he knew I knew he was behind me, only going 5 over, so I figured it had to have been an OC thing. He told me to show him my hands, so I put them up. (yep, gun thing) He greeted me by my first name, and I immediately disclosed, then asked what's up? He said he thought I was revoked, and asked for my CPL, which I gave him. He asked why I had been revoked, and I explained that I had only been suspended for 6 months because I was falsely accused of CC on a school property, a my word against theirs thing. He asked for my gun, so I gave it to him, and he told me that he wanted to check my CPL status and as long as it checked out, everything would be fine. He came back with my ID, CPL and gun in hand, gave it back to me, and wished me well, I put the mag in, chambered a round, he gave me back the 1st round, and we wished each other well. He told me that he would go tell the others that I was good to go. I do believe he had RAS, because the last time we met, I was suspended. I don't have a problem at all with anything he did, or how he did it, except that the constitution says that I have a RKBA (I feel that includes your car), the police are sworn to uphold the constitution, yet the police are out here not enforcing the supreme laws, but the lower ones that run contradictory to it. I understand that rights are not absolute and all, and reasonable restrictions, but not laws that do nothing to benifit people, stop crime, and run against the constitution.

    Sorry for the rant, I just don't get it.
    IANAL! My Take:

    1. I would believe a simple LEIN Search, based upon your license plate, would have provided the officer that the 6 months had already passed on the CPL Revocation. I have not seen the information provided by LEIN in a Police Vehicle, so I cannot be certain of this. It is obvious that you "checked out", so there must have been something the officer checked on to confirm this.

    2. It appears that the Police Officers out there know you and have you "on their radar". This, I do not like and would work to ensure further interactions do not occur.

    3. I would not have given them much info during the stop. I have no reason to discuss any "past convictions" with an officer, is it really his business? Besides, you have no duty to do anything other than disclose, provide CPL, and provide ID.

    4. I would file a FOIA Request with the City FOIA Coordinator (usually City Clerk). I would get and review the information (dashcam, etc.) to determine if this officer truly believed he had RAS and to ensure you are not being "singled-out" for any reason.
    Last edited by PDinDetroit; 10-28-2010 at 10:30 AM. Reason: Edited to include duty to provide CPL.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    And provide cpl
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by lapeer20m View Post
    And provide cpl
    I may have misunderstood you, I did provide my CPL. ?

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by rotorhead View Post
    I dunno man, it seems this could go two different ways based on what you provided.

    Let me first say up front that I am not up to speed with your state's laws and regulations so I'm only going by what you posted.

    Personally, it seems like he was under the impression that you were still suspended and simply wanted to follow up on that. It does seem, and you say as much, that he had RAS to at least make the stop and clear the matter up. Hey, at least he did it away from the gas station, saving you from the public's peering eyes and the embarrassment that can come from such an incident :P

    I'm no fan of over-active LEOs pumped up on too many donuts, energy drinks, and a false sense of civic duty which compels them to make idiotic stops which only escalate simple matters into ridiculous over-blown incidents. Perhaps we hear and highlight too many of those incidents and not enough of the smart plays LEOs make every day. At face value, it seems to me that the stop was not only legal, but also fairly smart on the part of the LEO. Once things were cleared up, everything was returned to you. At least he didn't do the "you can come down to the station tomorrow and pick up your gun" thing...

    I can understand the urge to rant against violations of the 2A, but in this case, I feel his actions were justified and posed no violations to anyone's constitutional right as spelled out in the 2A.

    On the other hand, there still remain many cases in which people's rights are indeed violated by over reaching legislation and "eager" LEOs who operate under a false sense of importance which can and do translate into major violations. I just don't believe this is one of those cases
    You raise some good points. My issue is that carrying a gun in a car (not cased, unloaded, in the trunk etc...) is a felony in Michigan without the CPL (see permission slip
    ), yet the constitution guarantees a person to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. You can't do that if the gun is inaccessible to the owner. Thus, the police are reinforcing laws contrary to the constitution and common sense. This turns a right into a felony, or as in my case, as I have a CPL, turns a right into a privilege.

    I do feel that under the current laws that RAS was met, and I am comfortable enough with the officer to handle the firearm without being shot, but this isn't exactly in line with either the US or MI Constitutions.

  9. #9
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    I may have misunderstood you, I did provide my CPL. ?
    No, it was based upon my post, which I changed. You are good!

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047

    Question uhmmmmm????

    "He asked for my gun, so I gave it to him,"

    Please tell me that you did not hand him your pistol? If you did, I strongly suggest never doing it again. That is rogue cop dirty trick #1
    (I had to shoot the subject because he drew his weapon at me).
    Last edited by Glock9mmOldStyle; 10-28-2010 at 08:44 PM. Reason: typo

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    It wasnt that kind of a situation, I know the guy well enough. With someone I don't know, I would request that he take it out of the holster himself.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    456
    IMO the cop was on a fishing expedition and had no reason to stop you.

    In regards to handing a cop your gun, that is a NO NO!!! There are too many what ifs that can come into play and give an officer a reason to shoot you. Politely tell the officer you are not comfortable with his request and offer to step out of the vehicle and let him remove it personally. Even if you know the officer, it is still a BAD idea. Example, his back up officer arrives on the other side of your vehicle which YOU are UNWARE of. This officer sees you reaching for a gun, doesn't know what is going on, and justifiably thinks you are trying to kill his partner which in turn he opens fire. I'm not trying to be a downer here, but there are too many variables that can occur when you touch/reach for a gun on a traffic stop. Lastly a trained officer that want’s to secure your weapon should also know that this is a NO NO. He should request you step out and let him retrieve it without you touching it.
    Last edited by budlight; 10-29-2010 at 01:31 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by budlight View Post
    IMO the cop was on a fishing expedition and had no reason to stop you.

    In regards to handing a cop your gun, that is a NO NO!!! There are too many what ifs that can come into play and give an officer a reason to shoot you. Politely tell the officer you are not comfortable with his request and offer to step out of the vehicle and let him remove it personally. Even if you know the officer, it is still a BAD idea. Example, his back up officer arrives on the other side of your vehicle which YOU are UNWARE of. This officer sees you reaching for a gun, doesn't know what is going on, and justifiably thinks you are trying to kill his partner which in turn he opens fire. I'm not trying to be a downer here, but there are too many variables that can occur when you touch/reach for a gun on a traffic stop. Lastly a trained officer that want’s to secure your weapon should also know that this is a NO NO. He should request you step out and let him retrieve it without you touching it.
    +1

Posting Permissions

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