Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 320

Thread: one of us? open carry at dui checkpoint

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    La Paz county, Arizona.
    Posts
    338

    one of us? open carry at dui checkpoint

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESv-39IT1QY

    I got this vid from another ( cal guns) forum, seems like a person is Sparks NV got his handgun taken and some stuff stolen by the PD, IDK why they still have his gun if he isn't being charged-he probably pissed them off.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Sabotage70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Fabulous Las Vegas, NV, ,
    Posts
    844
    EDC=XDm40 16+1+16+16

    RED DRAGONS!!!!

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413
    We have, however, open carried at Las Vegas DUI checkpoints with success. Police are very professional on the OC topic. This photo is of two OCDO members at the checkpoint gathering evidence that will hopefully one day eliminate checkpoints in the Las Vegas area entirely.

    And even though we were there, working in a very obvious way against police, they didn't harass us. We even later went and held up bright neon yellow signs of our own, and a motorcycle officer watching for red-light-runners sat just feet from us for a few minutes and didn't seem the least bit concerned about our presence.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Last Import - 03 - Copy.jpg 
Views:	1117 
Size:	97.0 KB 
ID:	4920  
    Last edited by timf343; 01-02-2011 at 03:36 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716
    Something that strikes me is that he complains about being detained and falsely accused, yet he uses the images of several departments that would never be present at a Sparks, Nv. checkpoint. I see Carson City Sheriff, Lyon Co. Sheriff, Reno P.D., and a couple more departments which may or may not have been present. He never identifies the departments directly involved with the checkpoint, he just lumps all departments in together rather they were there or not.

    He claims that a "Carson County" sheriff's deputy signaled him to stop, where exactly is Carson County and why would they be in Sparks Nv. which is in Washoe Co.?

    I believe that he hurts his cause more than he helps because of the way he plays fast and loose with the facts. I think he would make a much better impact if he would just stick to the truth and not try to make it worse than it is.

    I also believe that he was OCing more to provoke a response than to provide for defense as it is obvious that his primary intent in this was to challenge the roadblock, not to promote OC.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordie View Post
    I also believe that he was OCing more to provoke a response than to provide for defense as it is obvious that his primary intent in this was to challenge the roadblock, not to promote OC.
    Because the constitution applies to everyone not just unarmed people. there are no rights that are forfeited by virtue of being armed. The police took an oath to uphold the constitution, they can't treat someone differently simply because they are exercising one of those rights.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Sabotage70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Fabulous Las Vegas, NV, ,
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordie View Post
    Something that strikes me is that he complains about being detained and falsely accused, yet he uses the images of several departments that would never be present at a Sparks, Nv. checkpoint. I see Carson City Sheriff, Lyon Co. Sheriff, Reno P.D., and a couple more departments which may or may not have been present. He never identifies the departments directly involved with the checkpoint, he just lumps all departments in together rather they were there or not.

    He claims that a "Carson County" sheriff's deputy signaled him to stop, where exactly is Carson County and why would they be in Sparks Nv. which is in Washoe Co.?

    I believe that he hurts his cause more than he helps because of the way he plays fast and loose with the facts. I think he would make a much better impact if he would just stick to the truth and not try to make it worse than it is.

    I also believe that he was OCing more to provoke a response than to provide for defense as it is obvious that his primary intent in this was to challenge the roadblock, not to promote OC.
    If I remember right. He was coming home from a racing event with his motorcycle in the back of his truck. It wasn't like he went out looking for check points. He was just trying to get home like any other person would.
    EDC=XDm40 16+1+16+16

    RED DRAGONS!!!!

  7. #7
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241
    This is an outrage, I'll be talking with Internal Affairs of Sparks PD. I called them just now and no supervisor is there.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    I started tagging along with Tim, (why should he be happy) and was at the checkpoint that he showed the picture of. I went through on my motorcycle, and I am lefty so strong side out. All I said was "I do not consent X2 and then it was, "have a nice evening Sir." Not bad at all, and they noticed for sure.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordie View Post
    Something that strikes me is that he complains about being detained and falsely accused, yet he uses the images of several departments that would never be present at a Sparks, Nv. checkpoint. I see Carson City Sheriff, Lyon Co. Sheriff, Reno P.D., and a couple more departments which may or may not have been present. He never identifies the departments directly involved with the checkpoint, he just lumps all departments in together rather they were there or not.

    He claims that a "Carson County" sheriff's deputy signaled him to stop, where exactly is Carson County and why would they be in Sparks Nv. which is in Washoe Co.?

    I believe that he hurts his cause more than he helps because of the way he plays fast and loose with the facts. I think he would make a much better impact if he would just stick to the truth and not try to make it worse than it is.

    I also believe that he was OCing more to provoke a response than to provide for defense as it is obvious that his primary intent in this was to challenge the roadblock, not to promote OC.
    You are swimming in the deep end of the pool. Get out and join the children wading in the kiddie pool.

    http://dailysparkstribune.com/view/f...ts_left_column

    http://www.rgj.com/article/20101219/...sts-11-for-DUI

    http://www.sparkspd.com/aggregator/sources/1

    My primary intent was to go home. I'm not in the business of promoting open carry and the seat of my truck is a lousy place to do that were I so inclined.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Creech AFB. NV
    Posts
    107
    I am a bit torn on this whole issue.

    While I agree with the driver and will be calling and complaining myself, sometimes it is better to cooperate while stating that you rights are being violated and fighting the battle with a lawyer, not on the street. If he had cooperated and spoke his mind, there would have been no arrest.

    Cops making **** up to further an investigation of an uncooperative individual? Yes
    Uncooperative individual making a cops dangerous job harder. Yes

    Just remember that it is not the offers fault that we have a ****** system. Most of them are trying to do their job safely while playing the political game. Don't fight the war with them as you will always loose some way or another. Cooperate, state what rights are being infringed, and take it up with a good attorney the next day.

    I however am pissed that his personal property was removed and not returned. That by it self (removal of evidence by the police) should be enough to get the case kicked out of the courts.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by MilitaryMike View Post
    Uncooperative individual making a cops dangerous job harder. Yes

    You know....I understand the base sentiment here, but I have a problem with statements like this.

    I worked as a welder/fabricator building rail cars and open water cargo barges in a heavy industrial shop for almost 15 years. There are procedures we must follow in order for our product to meet federal and industry standards for integrity and safety...much the same way there are procedures for LEO's to follow in order to NOT violate our rights.

    'Uncooperative individuals', as you describe them, would be much like a supervisor or QA (quality assurance) inspector checking on a worker to make sure they're not using a 'backing bar' to close an out of tolerance gap, or sweeping a bunch of scrap metal into a butt-weld as 'filler' in order to fill the gap in five passes instead of eight, and finish the job faster.

    Is it easier to do that? Oh hell yeah.

    Is it 'done right'? Oh, hell no. And it endangers people unnecessarily in both situations.

    LEO's who get their knickers in a twist (calling them 'uncooperative') because a citizen knows the limitation of their authority and hold them to it, are like the production worker who blames the QA inspector for getting caught putting out crap work.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Phssthpok View Post
    LEO's who get their knickers in a twist (calling them 'uncooperative') because a citizen knows the limitation of their authority and hold them to it, are like the production worker who blames the QA inspector for getting caught putting out crap work.
    Not quite.

    In the case of the welder, there is a clearly-repeatable standard. With the LEO, each contact must be handled on an individual basis. The guy who knows his rights and is unwilling to give an inch MAY be a good guy who just won't be pushed around, or he may be a bad guy, smugly getting away with something. The cop has to figure out which he is dealing with, and act accordingly -- and once he has made the judgment, it is hard to go back and start again.

    When I meet with a cop, I try to be friendly, and project that I am a good guy and cheerfully cooperate to the extent that I am required by law, but not willing to give more to the cop than the cop is supposed to have.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by DVC View Post
    Not quite.

    In the case of the welder, there is a clearly-repeatable standard.
    So...federal and state laws are not clearly established repeatable standards by which officers are bound to operate?

    With the LEO, each contact must be handled on an individual basis.
    True...much like a welder who must must make the conscious choice to weld *this* piece either in accordance with the regulations or not, just like the last piece.

    The guy who knows his rights and is unwilling to give an inch MAY be a good guy who just won't be pushed around, or he may be a bad guy, smugly getting away with something. The cop has to figure out which he is dealing with, and act accordingly -- and once he has made the judgment, it is hard to go back and start again.
    And that illustrates the kind of thinking that has gotten us to where we are. You see...the way our system is set up, the cop can 'know' that he's dealing with 'a bad guy, smugly getting away with something', but if he has no PROOF (and the 'bad guy' is legally preventing him for gaining any) then he has no choice but to let him go. Giving LEO's a pass on violating rights just so they can bag a 'bad guy' is just plain WRONG. The ends DO NOT justify the means.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721
    Hey here's a thought. Cops don't do anything until we transfer somebody from our custody into their custody, or we give them a warrant to take somebody into custody. Crazy talk huh? That's the way it was supposed to be before police became institutionalized and unionized.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by Yard Sale View Post
    You are swimming in the deep end of the pool. Get out and join the children wading in the kiddie pool.

    http://dailysparkstribune.com/view/f...ts_left_column

    http://www.rgj.com/article/20101219/...sts-11-for-DUI

    http://www.sparkspd.com/aggregator/sources/1

    My primary intent was to go home. I'm not in the business of promoting open carry and the seat of my truck is a lousy place to do that were I so inclined.
    I stand corrected on the different agencies. Sorry for the confusion, I just didn't see what business a cop has outside their own jurisdiction (still don't even though they justify it in the papers) and I don't read the papers very much. This operation begs an obvious question, is there so little for cops to do in their own jurisdictions that they must travel to others to have something to do? If so, I see some easy places to cut spending in these tight financial times.

    Speaking of the money, I'm glad that the Washoe County School District Police Department was there to collect some of our tax dollars, I guess we wouldn't want them to miss out on some grant funded (aka tax payer funded) overtime.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721
    Well the School Police sort of had a reason to feed at the trough. Seized vehicles were taken to a high school parking lot. The mobile command center was parked there and they had canopies set up there. Here is how they left one canopy at the high school:
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0004.jpg 
Views:	471 
Size:	97.5 KB 
ID:	4927  
    Last edited by Yard Sale; 05-03-2011 at 12:51 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    By a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional

    Is the contention that the checkpoint was not properly conducted? If so how? And if your going to say how it was run you should know the legal requirements to conduct one.

    Everyone is happy when there is a decision by the Supreme Court that they like, well I don't like the fact that they are legal but the US Supreme Court has said they are and so they are.

    It's very hypocritical when you will listen to only the parts of the Constitution or the decisions that the Supreme Courts that you agree with. But then rail against someone doing that same from the anti-gun position.

    Based on what I listened to he should have been arrested for obstruction.
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix David View Post

    Based on what I listened to he should have been arrested for obstruction.
    Standing on the 5th Amendment is obstruction?

  19. #19
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegassteve View Post
    Standing on the 5th Amendment is obstruction?
    No. He could have remained mute but obey the lawful orders of the police. I.E when they told him to get out of the car. Obstruction. I hope they throw the book at him.
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix David View Post
    By a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional
    That's a gross misrepresentation of Sitz. The Rehnquist court found suspicionless seizures at roadblocks to be per se violations of the fourth amendment and unconstitutional. The court allowed them anyway, thus they are legal where allowed by states.

    Is the contention that the checkpoint was not properly conducted? If so how? And if your going to say how it was run you should know the legal requirements to conduct one.
    There is no such thing as a dui checkpoint or sobriety checkpoint in the Nevada Revised Statues, nor in the local muni code. If you are going to argue law in the Nevada forum, you'd better put on your big girl panties.

    Based on what I listened to he should have been arrested for obstruction.
    Obstruction of what? The road? Arrested under what law? If you are going to argue law in the Nevada forum, you'd better put on your big girl panties.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Phoenix David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    629
    Quote Originally Posted by Yard Sale View Post
    That's a gross misrepresentation of Sitz. The Rehnquist court found suspicionless seizures at roadblocks to be per se violations of the fourth amendment and unconstitutional. The court allowed them anyway, thus they are legal where allowed by states.


    There is no such thing as a dui checkpoint or sobriety checkpoint in the Nevada Revised Statues, nor in the local muni code. If you are going to argue law in the Nevada forum, you'd better put on your big girl panties.


    Obstruction of what? The road? Arrested under what law? If you are going to argue law in the Nevada forum, you'd better put on your big girl panties.
    Then you are arguing that the checkpoint was not properly conducted. Which still does not give you the right to obstruct. If you felt that the checkpoint was not legal there are avenues to address that. But instead of availing yourself of the legal channels to address that you had a temper tantrum.
    Freedom is a bit like sex, when your getting it you take it for granted, when you're not you want it bad, other people get mad at you for having it and others want to take it away from you so only they have it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix David View Post
    No. He could have remained mute but obey the lawful orders of the police. I.E when they told him to get out of the car. Obstruction. I hope they throw the book at him.
    He did obey orders. They threatened him with obstruction long before he was told to get out of the car. They were upset off the bat that he didnt roll his window all the way down which he is not required to do. While they LIED and said they couldnt hear him when clearly they did.

    My guess is you are or were a LEO and cant stand the fact that a citizen stood up for himself.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix David View Post
    Then you are arguing that the checkpoint was not properly conducted. Which still does not give you the right to obstruct. If you felt that the checkpoint was not legal there are avenues to address that. But instead of availing yourself of the legal channels to address that you had a temper tantrum.
    So, from your take a DUI check point is valid reason to stop you and do anything they want to you for no reason what-so-ever? He didn't want to roll down his window so you think he should be charged with obstruction? wtf?! Seriously?

    How did that obstruct the dui check point? He stopped where he was suppose to and obeyed the lawful commands while standing his ground against uinlawful commands. Where in the DUI regulations does it say you must roll down your window? Please cite the federal, state, or local statute. He exited the vehicle after being commanded and advising the officers he feared for his safety. Clearly he had a reason to be fearful of them. He was being stopped for no good reason, removed from his vehicle at gun point and arrested under threat of death.

    It is the OP's opinion that the officers lied about smelling alcohol. And apparently the charges were dropped? Soo... if the DUI charges were dropped then that must mean he wasn't drinking right? Makes you kinda go hmmm....

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix David View Post
    By a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional

    Is the contention that the checkpoint was not properly conducted? If so how? And if your going to say how it was run you should know the legal requirements to conduct one.

    Everyone is happy when there is a decision by the Supreme Court that they like, well I don't like the fact that they are legal but the US Supreme Court has said they are and so they are.

    It's very hypocritical when you will listen to only the parts of the Constitution or the decisions that the Supreme Courts that you agree with. But then rail against someone doing that same from the anti-gun position.

    Based on what I listened to he should have been arrested for obstruction.
    Yardsale is accurate on several fronts, First DUI Roadblocks are Consensual and you have to consent. Not consenting is NOT obstructing, I fail to see a lawful order, I would like to hear a argument that the roll down your window "order" or any other, was authorized under law.
    There has to be a turn out so you may avoid the checkpoint, if desired. and the only requirement by law is to obay traffic control, lawful commands and or directions. There is no "roll down the window statute" and a lawful order is one that is given with reasonable suspicion, that a crime was, is, or has, been committed. here is the statute on roadblocks.

    NRS 484B.570 Administrative roadblock: Establishment; minimum requirements.

    1. The police officers in this State may establish, in their respective jurisdictions, administrative roadblocks upon the highways of this State for any lawful purpose other than identifying the occupants of a vehicle or because of the existence of an emergency.

    2. To warn and protect the traveling public, administrative roadblocks established by police officers must meet the following requirements:

    (a) The administrative roadblock must be established at a point on the highway clearly visible to approaching traffic at a distance of not less than 100 yards in either direction.

    (b) At the point of the administrative roadblock, a sign must be placed near the centerline of the highway displaying the word “Stop” in letters of sufficient size and luminosity to be readable at a distance of not less than 50 yards in the direction affected by the roadblock, either in daytime or darkness.

    (c) At the same point of the administrative roadblock, at least one red flashing or intermittent light, on and burning, must be placed at the side of the highway, clearly visible to the oncoming traffic at a distance of not less than 100 yards.

    (d) At a distance of not less than one-quarter of a mile from the point of the administrative roadblock, warning signs must be placed at the side of the highway, containing any wording of sufficient size and luminosity to warn the oncoming traffic that a “police stop” lies ahead. A burning beam light, flare or lantern must be placed near the signs to attract the attention of the traffic to the sign.

    (Added to NRS by 1969, 1495; A 1987, 1073)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.359)

    NRS 484B.573 Temporary roadblock: Establishment; minimum requirements.

    1. The police officers in this State may establish, in their respective jurisdictions, or in other jurisdictions within this State, temporary roadblocks upon the highways of this State:

    (a) To apprehend persons known to be wanted for violation of the laws of this State, another state or the United States, and using the highways of this State for the purpose of escape; or

    (b) To control traffic at or near the scene of a potential or existing emergency or hazard.

    2. To warn and protect the traveling public, temporary roadblocks established by police officers must meet the following requirements:

    (a) The temporary roadblock must be established at a point on the highway clearly visible at a distance of not less than 100 yards in either direction.

    (b) At the point of the temporary roadblock, an authorized emergency vehicle, plainly and clearly marked as such and with its warning lights in operation, must be placed so as to be clearly visible to traffic affected by the roadblock at a distance of not less than 100 yards. When so placed, at least one of the vehicle’s flashing red lights must be visible to approaching traffic at a distance of not less than 100 yards.

    (c) At the same point of the temporary roadblock, sufficient cones, reflectors, burning flares or similar devices must be in place to identify the point of the roadblock and direct, as necessary, the path to be followed by a vehicle approaching the roadblock. The devices, when in place, must be clearly visible to traffic affected by the roadblock at a distance of not less than 100 yards.

    (d) At a point located not less than 200 yards, but not more than 400 yards, from the point of the temporary roadblock, cones, reflectors, burning flares or similar devices must be placed on both shoulders of the highway and near the centerline of the highway to warn traffic that a condition hazardous to traffic exists in the immediate vicinity.

    (Added to NRS by 1987, 1072)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.3591)

    NRS 484B.577 Authority of police officers not limited by provisions relating to roadblocks. The provisions of NRS 484B.570 and 484B.573 do not limit the existing authority of police officers in the performance of their duties involving traffic control.

    (Added to NRS by 1987, 1073)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.3593)

    NRS 484B.580 Failure to stop at roadblock; penalties.

    1. It is unlawful for a person to:

    (a) Proceed or travel through an administrative roadblock or a temporary roadblock without subjecting himself or herself to the traffic control established at the roadblock.

    (b) Disobey the lawful orders or directions of a police officer at an administrative roadblock or a temporary roadblock.

    2. A person who unlawfully proceeds through an administrative roadblock or a temporary roadblock shall be punished:

    (a) If the person is the direct cause of a death or substantial bodily harm to any person, or damage to property in excess of $1,000, for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.

    (b) If no death, substantial bodily harm or damage to property in excess of $1,000 occurs, for a gross misdemeanor.

    (Added to NRS by 1987, 1073; A 1995, 1298)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.3595)


    If officers did not need reasonable suspicion, what would keep them from making you roll down your window, and administering a PBT (portable breath test) on every driver?
    also when you quote sitz, remember approx 1/3 of the decision was based on minimal intrusion. That Michigan roadblock only saw 125 vehicles. and I venture to guess no one was stuck in line for ten mins.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Creech AFB. NV
    Posts
    107
    Again, I agree that DUI check points infringe on rights. However in cases like this, it is best to voice your right and cooperate (especially with simple requests), and fight the battle from home rather than a jail cell. Like the military, the police are require to follow the instructions from the top. ******* with the cops will just in this type of situation will just make them react to your actions. Here is what I wou;d have done.

    -Rolled down the window
    -Asked what the reason was for the stop
    -Asked to further clarify what I did to cause the stop.
    -Inform the police officer that under the law the stop is a violation of my rights and if it continued I would file a formal complaint and consult a lawyer.
    -Continue to cooperate, record the incident, and impress the fact that you do not consent, that your rights are being violated, but remain cooperative.

    Truth be told, the system is corrupt at the top. Even if you remain out of jail and take this to court, you will probably lose..and not because the law is not on your side, but because I doubt they care about the law or constitution. I rather fight it in a more intelligent way and stay out of jail.

    Now if the situation absolutely requires me to go to jail, I would. But I rather not get shot by a few cops on edge about my standoffish attitude when they notice my pistol. Just not smart.

Page 1 of 13 12311 ... 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
  •