Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: Border Patrol now investigating firearms in Michigan

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Border Patrol now investigating firearms in Michigan

    Sunday evening, I was heading home to Michigan from deer hunting at my parent's in Ohio. As I crossed into Michigan, I stopped at the Monroe rest stop/Michigan welcome center. It was after 8PM and dark. I noticed only one other customer who was just finishing walking their dog and getting back in the car. I was open carrying my Springfield xd9.
    I exited my car carrying my jacket in my hand and some trash for the can in the other. I threw away my trash and proceeded into the rest stop. I exited a minute or two later and approached my car, now, seemingly, the only one in the lot.
    As I reached my car and began to unlock, I noticed a pickup truck pulling out of the back of the property by a garage building. The truck flashed blue and reds briefly to get my attention and pulled up perpendicular to the passenger side of my car with headlights on and flashers off.
    Two BP agents exited the pickup. There manner was calm and they didn't act aggressively or reach for their guns, as is the custom of some local LEOs. The driver asked if I had a gun and I said "yes", all the while remaining behind my vehicle. He asked if I was a cop, to which I replied, "no."
    The next question was whether I had a "CCW" and despite the obviously incorrect wording, I replied to the affirmative and was asked if they could see it. I said, "sure" and came around the car and showed them my CPL. They didn't ask for any other ID. The driver said he just wanted to make sure I was "legit". I said, "OK" and left.
    I know there were a lot of other things I could have said to them, but under the late night circumstances and with a lack of witnesses, I decided to play it cool.
    I know others would have handled it differently, but I was post-unsuccessful deer hunt and was in no mood for an argument...
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    You walked away alive and well and with your property and dignity intact. I'd say you handled the situation perfectly well. Good job and good luck with future hunts.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I would say that BP is law enforcement, although not the traditional street cop variety, therefore the situation should be handled the same way. If they want to honor their oath to the constitution, then treat them well, if not WRR.

    I think you made a good call here as well.

    A LEO might ask for a CPL before you enter a vehicle in a simple attempt to save you from (possibly) unknowingly committing a felony. IMO, an officer doing this should be commended, they are in fact, protecting your constitutional rights from a system that has failed those rights.

  4. #4
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Don't federal agents have better things to do? AFAIK, it's not a Federal crime to be in possession of a firearm at a rest stop. Federal Agents should stick to enforcing Federal Law and not State Law that they clearly do not know.

    Thank you for the story. I'm sorry you were hassled.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    I am not familiar with Federal FOIA's, however I suggest you file one. They wanted to know who you are without having any RAS, or for that matter any real reason to even be on patrol there, and at the very least you owe it to yourself to know who they are.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    They have no jurisdiction either.

    That whole stop was illegal.

    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    I am not familiar with Federal FOIA's, however I suggest you file one. They wanted to know who you are without having any RAS, or for that matter any real reason to even be on patrol there, and at the very least you owe it to yourself to know who they are.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailenforcer View Post
    They have no jurisdiction either.

    That whole stop was illegal.

    ..
    I don't know anything about the stop, the poster didn't say if he was detained or not but I found this on the internet
    . It appears that Federal LEO's in Michigan do have limited peace officer status. It's not complete peace officer authority like some states grant; however, to claim that a Federal LEO has no jurisdiction appears to be incorrect according to the MCL.

    764.15d Federal law enforcement officer; powers.

    Sec. 15d.

    (1) A federal law enforcement officer may enforce state law to the same extent as a state or local officer only if all of the following conditions are met:

    (a) The officer is authorized under federal law to arrest a person, with or without a warrant, for a violation of a federal statute.

    (b) The officer is authorized by federal law to carry a firearm in the performance of his or her duties.

    (c) One or more of the following apply:

    (i) The officer possesses a state warrant for the arrest of the person for the commission of a felony.

    (ii) The officer has received positive information from an authoritative source, in writing or by telegraph, telephone, teletype, radio, computer, or other means, that another federal law enforcement officer or a peace officer possesses a state warrant for the arrest of the person for the commission of a felony.

    (iii) The officer is participating in a joint investigation conducted by a federal agency and a state or local law enforcement agency.

    (iv) The officer is acting pursuant to the request of a state or local law enforcement officer or agency.

    (v) The officer is responding to an emergency.

    (2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), a federal law enforcement officer who meets the requirements of subsection (1) has the privileges and immunities of a peace officer of this state.

    (3) This section does not impose liability upon or require indemnification by the state or a local unit of government for an act performed by a federal law enforcement officer under this section.

    (4) As used in this section:

    (a) “Emergency” means a sudden or unexpected circumstance that requires immediate action to protect the health, safety, welfare, or property of an individual from actual or threatened harm or from an unlawful act.

    (b) “Local unit of government” means a county, city, village, or township.


    History: Add. 1987, Act 256, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 1987 ;-- Am. 1999, Act 64, Eff. Oct. 1, 1999

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-l...tion-free-zone

    Fact Sheet on U.S. "Constitution Free Zone"

    October 22, 2008
    The problem

    Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches.
    The border, however, has always been an exception. There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply. For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.”
    But what is “the border”? According to the government, it is a 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the United States.
    As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away from the border, American citizens traveling from one place in America to another, are being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
    Border Patrol has been setting up checkpoints inland — on highways in states such as California, Texas and Arizona, and at ferry terminals in Washington State. Typically, the agents ask drivers and passengers about their citizenship. Unfortunately, our courts so far have permitted these kinds of checkpoints – legally speaking, they are “administrative” stops that are permitted only for the specific purpose of protecting the nation’s borders. They cannot become general drug-search or other law enforcement efforts.
    However, these stops by Border Patrol agents are not remaining confined to that border security purpose. On the roads of California and elsewhere in the nation – places far removed from the actual border – agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing.
    The bottom line is that the extraordinary authorities that the government possesses at the border are spilling into regular American streets.
    Much of U.S. population affected
    Many Americans and Washington policymakers believe that this is a problem confined to the San Diego-Tijuana border or the dusty sands of Arizona or Texas, but these powers stretch far inland across the United States.
    To calculate what proportion of the U.S. population is affected by these powers, the ACLU created a map and spreadsheet showing the population and population centers that lie within 100 miles of any “external boundary” of the United States.
    The population estimates were calculated by examining the most recent US census numbers for all counties within 100 miles of these borders. Using numbers from the Population Distribution Branch of the US Census Bureau, we were able to estimate both the total number and a state-by-state population breakdown. The custom map was created with help from a map expert at World Sites Atlas.
    What we found is that fully TWO-THIRDS of the United States’ population lives within this Constitution-free or Constitution-lite Zone. That’s 197.4 million people who live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.
    Nine of the top 10 largest metropolitan areas as determined by the 2000 census, fall within the Constitution-free Zone. (The only exception is #9, Dallas-Fort Worth.) Some states are considered to lie completely within the zone: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.
    Part of a broader problem
    The spread of border-search powers inland is part of a broad expansion of border powers with the potential to affect the lives of ordinary Americans who have never left their own country.
    It coincides with the development of numerous border technologies, including watch list and database systems such as the Automated Targeting System (ATS) traveler risk assessment program, identity and tracking systems such as electronic (RFID) passports, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), and intrusive technological schemes such as the Secure Border Initiative Network (SBINet) or “virtual border fence” and unmanned aerial vehicles (aka “drone aircraft”).
    This illegitimate expansion of the extraordinary powers of agents at the border is also part of a general trend we have seen over the past 8 years of an untrammeled, heedless expansion of police and national security powers without regard to the effect on innocent Americans.
    This trend is also typical of the Bush Administration’s dragnet approach to law enforcement and national security. Instead of intelligent, competent, targeted efforts to stop terrorism, illegal immigration, and other crimes, what we have been seeing in area after area is an approach that turns us all into suspects. This approach seeks to sift through the entire U.S. population in the hopes of encountering the rare individual whom the authorities have a legitimate interest in.

    If the current generation of Americans does not challenge this creeping (and sometimes galloping) expansion of federal powers over the individual through the rationale of “border protection,” we are not doing our part to keep alive the rights and freedoms that we inherited, and will soon find that we have lost some or all of their right to go about their business, and travel around inside their own country, without interference from the authorities.

  9. #9
    Regular Member kryptonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    248
    good thing those agents were down there protecting our border from ohio residents illegally crossing into michigan

  10. #10
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077


    Quote Originally Posted by kryptonian View Post
    good thing those agents were down there protecting our border from ohio residents illegally crossing into michigan
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    Statute law can not over rule Constitutional law. What you quoted is Statute law. In the Sheriff Mack vs the Brady bill it was clearly explained that Federal authorities must have Permission from the Local Sheriff to enter a county. Under federal, and Constitutional Laws Federal agents, Federal employees, only have Jurisdiction on Federal property. The problem is 99% of people are completely ignorant of this fact, and the politicians are not telling us either. For those who have worked in law Enforcement, know that the Feds advise and ask when they show up to do raids or arrests. Sadly most local jurisdictions have no idea they can say NO, or work in collusion with the Federal Government.

    I am sorry to say this, but many on this site have not done their homework and this is why we are loosing our rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    I don't know anything about the stop, the poster didn't say if he was detained or not but I found this on the internet
    . It appears that Federal LEO's in Michigan do have limited peace officer status. It's not complete peace officer authority like some states grant; however, to claim that a Federal LEO has no jurisdiction appears to be incorrect according to the MCL.

    764.15d Federal law enforcement officer; powers.

    Sec. 15d.

    (1) A federal law enforcement officer may enforce state law to the same extent as a state or local officer only if all of the following conditions are met:

    (a) The officer is authorized under federal law to arrest a person, with or without a warrant, for a violation of a federal statute.

    (b) The officer is authorized by federal law to carry a firearm in the performance of his or her duties.

    (c) One or more of the following apply:

    (i) The officer possesses a state warrant for the arrest of the person for the commission of a felony.

    (ii) The officer has received positive information from an authoritative source, in writing or by telegraph, telephone, teletype, radio, computer, or other means, that another federal law enforcement officer or a peace officer possesses a state warrant for the arrest of the person for the commission of a felony.

    (iii) The officer is participating in a joint investigation conducted by a federal agency and a state or local law enforcement agency.

    (iv) The officer is acting pursuant to the request of a state or local law enforcement officer or agency.

    (v) The officer is responding to an emergency.

    (2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), a federal law enforcement officer who meets the requirements of subsection (1) has the privileges and immunities of a peace officer of this state.

    (3) This section does not impose liability upon or require indemnification by the state or a local unit of government for an act performed by a federal law enforcement officer under this section.

    (4) As used in this section:

    (a) “Emergency” means a sudden or unexpected circumstance that requires immediate action to protect the health, safety, welfare, or property of an individual from actual or threatened harm or from an unlawful act.

    (b) “Local unit of government” means a county, city, village, or township.


    History: Add. 1987, Act 256, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 1987 ;-- Am. 1999, Act 64, Eff. Oct. 1, 1999
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by kryptonian View Post
    good thing those agents were down there protecting our border from ohio residents illegally crossing into michigan
    lol. Too many from Ohio, and we will all be stuck driving 60 with an air brake, er, front license plate, messing up the looks of our cars.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailenforcer View Post
    Statute law can not over rule Constitutional law. What you quoted is Statute law. In the Sheriff Mack vs the Brady bill it was clearly explained that Federal authorities must have Permission from the Local Sheriff to enter a county. Under federal, and Constitutional Laws Federal agents, Federal employees, only have Jurisdiction on Federal property. The problem is 99% of people are completely ignorant of this fact, and the politicians are not telling us either. For those who have worked in law Enforcement, know that the Feds advise and ask when they show up to do raids or arrests. Sadly most local jurisdictions have no idea they can say NO, or work in collusion with the Federal Government.

    I am sorry to say this, but many on this site have not done their homework and this is why we are loosing our rights.
    Federal authorities do not need permission from a local Sheriff to enter a county. Where did you get this information from? Alaska does not have counties, are Feds banned from entering Alaska? Some states have sheriff's but they are responsible for the courts and not general enforcement, how do feds enter those states?

    Sheriff Mack sued because originally the Brady Bill required the sheriff to engage in a positive action, which was doing the legwork for the Brady Check. The federal government can not require a state do do something per se. That is why the federal government could not require that states raise the drinking age or pass seatbelt laws, they did it by threatening to deny federal funding (I don't agree personally with this tactic).

    Mack won his lawsuit (and rightfully so) based upon that fact, not that the feds 'trespassed' (or something to that effect) on 'his' county. His contention was that if the Feds wanted the brady law, then they needed to enforce it and not require states or localities to do their dirty work.

    As far as federal arrest warrants, the Feds do not need to ask to serve a warrant, the only times the ask is if it is a state warrant or the state requests for them to come along. Federal warrants are executed by feds, sometimes they ask state people to come along but it is by no means required.

    I highly doubt the U.S. Marshall's Office asked for permission from counties in the south when they arrested county sheriff's and other people for civil rights violations in the 1960's. In fact, a county in Virginia (Gray Peterson knows more about this) was completely taken over temporarily by the feds when they refused to cease and desist from civil rights violations, it actually got that bad.

    Regarding the MCL, while the MCL (and all law for that matter) is suppose to conform to the constitution, there is nothing unconsititutional about the state granting police powers to feds or to anyone else they deem necessary for that matter. If you have any case law or something to point to to the contrary, please post it here so we all can look at it.
    Last edited by Jared; 12-07-2010 at 01:49 AM. Reason: addressed MI granting limited peace officer status.

  14. #14
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445
    Go easy here guys.

    We have a few BP members of OCDO and MOC, they're not all bad ya know.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    576

    Unhappy

    Why?

  16. #16
    Regular Member Onnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Maybee, Michigan
    Posts
    679
    Quote Originally Posted by kryptonian View Post
    good thing those agents were down there protecting our border from ohio residents illegally crossing into michigan
    noticed a ton of BP on both 75 and 23 in michigan watching traffic heading from Ohio to Michigan in the last week or two
    When Guns are OUTLAWED, Ill be an OUTLAW
    American Tactical Imports C45 45 AP
    S&W sigma 40 Cal
    Bersa 380 Thunder Plus
    Hi point C9 9mm
    Chiappa 1911-22 Semi-Auto .22 LR

    Im not a lawyer, but I did play a Klingon once at Universal Studios

  17. #17
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    Who knows, maybe they're going to keep us from leaving the state so we don't regress back into a territory.
    Rand Paul 2016

  18. #18
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Quote Originally Posted by dougwg View Post
    Go easy here guys.

    We have a few BP members of OCDO and MOC, they're not all bad ya know.
    I consider the lot of them my hired workers who do indeed serve a vital role in the security of the nation.

    But in this case, it seems a line was crossed. As with any boss, a tax paying citizen owes it to himself, and indeed everyone else to keep his workers in line. As indeed do all law enforcement agents owe it to us to stop actual suspected criminals within the scope of their jurisdiction when it actually comes up, and it's just fine and dandy when that means one of us, provided they actually have RAS.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Arizona, ,
    Posts
    431
    Wow, all I gota say is wow.


    Edit,

    I noticed something said something about a FOIA on this. Good luck as I'm Sure NOTHING was transmitted through the radio. There are also no cameras in BP rides. I would venture a guess the Agents didn't even report talking to you that night, as I'm sure they talked to 100 other people.

    And the Constitutional Free zones! LOL LOL LOL
    Last edited by jeremy05; 12-09-2010 at 02:51 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member NHCGRPR45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Chesterfield Township, MI
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    Don't federal agents have better things to do? AFAIK, it's not a Federal crime to be in possession of a firearm at a rest stop. Federal Agents should stick to enforcing Federal Law and not State Law that they clearly do not know.

    Thank you for the story. I'm sorry you were hassled.
    they were doing there job they were paying attention to what was going on around them! and maybe they didn't have a firm grasp of the law but they didn't stomp all over his rights either. i say good job, he walked away, and no harm no foul.

    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    I would say that BP is law enforcement, although not the traditional street cop variety, therefore the situation should be handled the same way. If they want to honor their oath to the constitution, then treat them well, if not WRR.

    I think you made a good call here as well.

    A LEO might ask for a CPL before you enter a vehicle in a simple attempt to save you from (possibly) unknowingly committing a felony. IMO, an officer doing this should be commended, they are in fact, protecting your constitutional rights from a system that has failed those rights.
    agreed. the BP does a great job within the confines of the law, so do all LEO organizations, for the most part. like everywhere else there are a few bad apples in the bushel, but for the most part they do a commendable job.
    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

    Michigan Concealed Pistol Instructor. Cost 80.00 With advanced techniques included free. PM for more information!

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321
    i have strong doubts about whether investigating citizens with firearms falls under the border patrol's job. this was nothing more than an illegal stop from a couple bored agents.
    from the border patrol website:
    http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_se...border_patrol/
    "The priority mission of the Border Patrol is preventing terrorists and terrorists' weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, from entering the United States."
    do i and my 9mm fall into that category?
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    456
    Here is my two cents…….
    1. I’m sure the courts would interpret a Boarder Patrol Agent as a law enforcement officer, so if you are carrying under the authority of a CPL, then you would have to disclose and show your CPL upon request IF you are being stopped or detained.
    2. OC, and CC w/CPL in Michigan is legal…..there is no state or federal law prohibiting it. Based on the conversation, the only reason for approaching/stopping was because of the firearm. Therefore they had no authority to stop or detain, all they could do is inquire if he was willing to talk to them.

    My suggestion would be to file a FOIA and also talk to their supervisor and inquire why Federal tax dollars are being spent to investigate LEGAL CITIZENS carrying firearms. What’s next, are they going to stop grandma for playing her radio too loud and check to make sure her gospel CD is not pirated?
    Last edited by budlight; 12-10-2010 at 12:49 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by smellslikemichigan View Post
    do i and my 9mm fall into that category?
    nope you're already in the US
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Arizona, ,
    Posts
    431
    why do you suspect your gun was the only reason for talking to you? The location you were in could be a drug area, or smuggling area, who knows. Maybe he wanted to see if you would be nervous upon a causal conversation. Don't try wash rinse and repeat with border patrol, they have the right to investigate anyone near the border, and i use the word near loosly haha. i cant cut paste law as im on my phone. There are a hundred things border patrol can use to stop someone, you haveing a gun openly is not needed.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy05 View Post
    why do you suspect your gun was the only reason for talking to you? The location you were in could be a drug area, or smuggling area, who knows. Maybe he wanted to see if you would be nervous upon a causal conversation. Don't try wash rinse and repeat with border patrol, they have the right to investigate anyone near the border, and i use the word near loosly haha. i cant cut paste law as im on my phone. There are a hundred things border patrol can use to stop someone, you haveing a gun openly is not needed.
    Based on the original post I would strongly suspect the gun was the only issue. They only asked for his CPL which by itself is not a valid form of ID, they never searched his vehicle, or ran his info. Granted they have more authority in the areas of borders, but the only issue brought up was the gun, so it appears they were trying to act like local uneducated officers. I have to wonder what their supervisor would think of this. As a tax payer I am upset that they would waste time with something like this and not try to enforce the laws they were hired for.
    Last edited by budlight; 12-10-2010 at 01:51 AM.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •