Video: Armed Citizens confront Nazi Checkpoint

There are no undocumented immigrants; There are illegal aliens though. Your comparison to nazi germany is false, and this is a perversion of our agenda.
Were you arrested for anything despite all your interfering? Seems like citizens were not having their rights infringed.
Also, were those of you just walking down the street asked to show any papers? Or was it just the drivers?

Hitler declared his laws "legal". The German people needed little convincing to pass those insane laws. "It's good for the state" seemed to sum up the majority of those arguments. I am seeing quite of bit of that in this country.

Those police officers were violating provisions of the state and Federal constitutions. They knew it and were breaking their oaths of office. There was NO justification for illegal search and seizure, yet they continued to do it. The excuse does not matter; the fact is they did it.

230therapy said:

Hitler declared his laws "legal". The German people needed little convincing to pass those insane laws. "It's good for the state" seemed to sum up the majority of those arguments. I am seeing quite of bit of that in this country.

Those police officers were violating provisions of the state and Federal constitutions. They knew it and were breaking their oaths of office. There was NO justification for illegal search and seizure, yet they continued to do it. The excuse does not matter; the fact is they did it.

Click to expand...

What provisions were being violated?

Save Our State said:

There are no undocumented immigrants; There are illegal aliens though. Your comparison to nazi germany is false, and this is a perversion of our agenda.
Were you arrested for anything despite all your interfering? Seems like citizens were not having their rights infringed.
Also, were those of you just walking down the street asked to show any papers? Or was it just the drivers?

Click to expand...

Being stopped while in peaceful transit is a violation of the rights of the drivers. The film crew guys were protesting that. 'Their' rights weren't violated. Stop and ID checkpoints are a violation of the 4th Amendment and not allowed in most states, unlike DWI checkpoints. Of course, the PDR of Kalifornia is not a state, so all bets are off. Even the Gulag of IL doesn't allow them. That says something right there. I use the term "nazi" when I think it's appropriate. This doesn't quite rise to that standard. But the subjects in the PDR are used to this kind of bs anyway. "Unloaded" open carry...

While the stops may have been illegal I don't think this group went about it the right way. They could have talked to drivers and held signs but the personal attacks against the officers and volunteers were unnecessary. I don't think all of those officers were responsible for ordering that checkpoint. Why not find out who authorized the checkpoint and go after that person?

Gunslinger said:

Being stopped while in peaceful transit is a violation of the rights of the drivers. The film crew guys were protesting that. 'Their' rights weren't violated. Stop and ID checkpoints are a violation of the 4th Amendment and not allowed in most states, unlike DWI checkpoints. Of course, the PDR of Kalifornia is not a state, so all bets are off. Even the Gulag of IL doesn't allow them. That says something right there. I use the term "nazi" when I think it's appropriate. This doesn't quite rise to that standard. But the subjects in the PDR are used to this kind of bs anyway. "Unloaded" open carry...

Click to expand...

Sorry I disagree as well, first of all, as a driver of a motor vehicle you must have a LICENSE to operate and drive on the roadways, so right there driving on public roadways is not a right its a privelage. As opposed to walking on roadways, which is not subject to licensing or a vehicle code.
Secondly every DUI checkpoint I have gone thru gave me ample warning and notice to alter my course of travel and avoid going thru the checkpoint If I wanted to, without repercussions. so If one chooses to go thru the checkpoint one is doing it consentually. And in many places the DUI checkpoints are advertised in local papers before being placed, giving people the opportunity to avoid them if they choose.

Remember when you signed your drivers license you entered into a contract with the State to abide by the rules and regulations of driving a motor vehicle on the roadway.

Now if they were stopping you at a checkpoint as a pedestrian without cause just because, to check ID then I would have a problem with it, but this video shows lack of knowledge or perhaps a better description would be distorted view of penal codes, vehicle codes, and citizen rights and DUI checkpoints on the part of the protesters.

Gunslinger said:

Being stopped while in peaceful transit is a violation of the rights of the drivers. Stop and ID checkpoints are a violation of the 4th Amendment and not allowed in most states, unlike DWI checkpoints. Of course, the PDR of Kalifornia is not a state, so all bets are off...

Click to expand...

This was a license and sobriety checkpoint. Not a stop and ID checkpoint. They checked for licenses and sobriety. If you produced a license, no further check of it happens. If you walk, take the bus, ride a bike, skateboard, rollerskates or wheelchair, you don't have to stop, nor will you be asked to.

Firemark said:

as a driver of a motor vehicle you must have a LICENSE to operate and drive on the roadways, so right there driving on public roadways is not a right its a privelage.

Click to expand...

Check out Delaware v. Prouse, where the Court ruled that stopping a car to check for a valid license was illegal. That's why they now make up lies about a taillight being out.

"Stopping a car for no other reason than to check the license and registration was unreasonable under the 4th amendment."
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979).

And in some places, cops are waiting to nab people who see a DUI checkpoint sign & avoid going that way. I've heard of that being done here in Milwaukee, though DUI checkpoints are illegal in WI.

I was hoping to see a video of a Nazi. Instead all I saw was some police and some people making up things while taping. I hope the people who took the video get some help. They don't even know what an illegal is and keep using the term undocumented instead. There is a difference and they don't know it. I think they should be protesting their lack of education instead.

Save Our State said:

This was a license and sobriety checkpoint. Not a stop and ID checkpoint. They checked for licenses and sobriety. If you produced a license, no further check of it happens. If you walk, take the bus, ride a bike, skateboard, rollerskates or wheelchair, you don't have to stop, nor will you be asked to.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you are correct then. While I feel DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional, the SC disagreed. This was lawful. And although I am not generally a fan of cops, they were just doing what they were told to do. None of them made the decision for the cluster ****.

Firemark said:

Sorry I disagree as well, first of all, as a driver of a motor vehicle you must have a LICENSE to operate and drive on the roadways, so right there driving on public roadways is not a right its a privelage. As opposed to walking on roadways, which is not subject to licensing or a vehicle code.
Secondly every DUI checkpoint I have gone thru gave me ample warning and notice to alter my course of travel and avoid going thru the checkpoint If I wanted to, without repercussions. so If one chooses to go thru the checkpoint one is doing it consentually. And in many places the DUI checkpoints are advertised in local papers before being placed, giving people the opportunity to avoid them if they choose.

Remember when you signed your drivers license you entered into a contract with the State to abide by the rules and regulations of driving a motor vehicle on the roadway.

Now if they were stopping you at a checkpoint as a pedestrian without cause just because, to check ID then I would have a problem with it, but this video shows lack of knowledge or perhaps a better description would be distorted view of penal codes, vehicle codes, and citizen rights and DUI checkpoints on the part of the protesters.

Click to expand...

Peaceful passage is a 'right' under black letter law, and stare decisis has upheld it repeatedly. It cannot be interfered with absent exigent circumstances. A license is a privilege, I agree, but it does not diminish your right to unimpeded, lawful transit. That being said, as pointed out, DUI checkpoints are lawful in every state under Federal law, although many are not under state law.

mohawk001 said:

I was hoping to see a video of a Nazi. Instead all I saw was some police and some people making up things while taping. I hope the people who took the video get some help. They don't even know what an illegal is and keep using the term undocumented instead. There is a difference and they don't know it. I think they should be protesting their lack of education instead.

Click to expand...

Well, they had some good Kraut marching songs at least...and a nice picture of the Waffen SS helping out Jewish refugees with their papers...

Thanks for being out there protesting this useless and unconstitutional checkpoint. How many drunks did they find while you were out there?

It's odd how many people turned out to support a DUI checkpoint on this forum. As soon as anybody is stopped at that checkpoint that person is being detained without RAS. My rights don't go out the door as soon as I do something that is a privilege. If I'm forced to drive out of my way to avoid being unlawfully seized without reasonable suspicion can I submit paperwork with the government to be reimbursed for the extra gas I had to burn to reach my destination?

In the future, don't let an officer herd you into a specific location on a public sidewalk. Public sidewalks are "traditional public forums" where first amendment rights are protected to the extreme. If there are two of you there and you aren't blocking the sidewalk then you can claim that your right to assemble was violated along with your right to free speech. He "asked" you to move and you voluntarily complied. Next time tell him no thanks and see if he issues a "lawful order". If he does then ask him on what grounds he is issuing such an order (lawful orders which trump one's right to assemble or to speak can only be given if a law is being broken, but if you stop breaking that law then the lawful order ceases to have any power behind it).

Firemark said:

SNIP Sorry I disagree as well, first of all, as a driver of a motor vehicle you must have a LICENSE to operate and drive on the roadways, so right there driving on public roadways is not a right its a privelage.

Click to expand...

Now, let me get this straight. Since the government issues decrees saying one must have a license to operate a vehicle, the right disappears and becomes a privilege?

Yeah, right. Like I'm dumb enuff to believe that just because government said so, it suddenly became true. And, I suddenly became dumb enuff to tell everybody else, forwarding the government's little intellectual dishonesty for them. Once upon a time, yes. But, no more.

Hmmmm. How about licenses to carry guns? A right became a privilege? Or, even better, subject to "reasonable" regulation?

I like Gunslinger's presentation better.

Contrary to popular belief, traveling for personal business is a Right, not a privilege as supported by the following court cases.


"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state. Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal. App. 534, 547, 224 Pac. 1008, 1013 (1924); Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1950), 222 Pac. 2d 1, 5, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950).

This right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally recognized in this country, that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen. Swift v. City of Topeka, 23 Pac. 1075,1076, 43 Kansas 671, 674.

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133,147.

Public ways, as applied to ways by land, are usually termed “highways” or “public roads,” are such ways as every citizen has a right to use. Kripp v. Curtis, 11 P. 879; 71 Cal. 62

Every citizen has an inalienable right to make use of the public highways of the state; every citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty. People v Nothaus, 363 P.2d 180, 182 (Colo.-1961).

Americans' "freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution," according to multiple cases including Williams v Fears, 179 US 270, 274; 21 S Ct 128; 45 L Ed 186 (1900); Twining v New Jersey, 211 US 78, 97; 29 S Ct 14; 53 L Ed 97 (1908), as listed in the case of United States v Guest, 383 US 745; 86 S Ct 1170; 16 L Ed 2d 239 (1968), a case involving criminally prosecuting people for obstructing the right (obstruction is a federal crime pursuant to federal criminal law 18 USC 241).

Case law shows that the "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment extends beyond freedom from bodily restraint and includes a much wider range of human activity, including but not limited to the opportunity to make a wide range of personal decisions concerning one's life, family, and private pursuits. See Meyer v, 262 US 390, 399; 43 SCt 625, 626; 67 L Ed 1043 (1923), and Roe v Wade, 410 US 113, 152-153; 93 S Ct 705, 726-727; 35 L Ed 2d 147 (1973). One of these life, family, private pursuits is obviously driving.

In effect, as per the Supreme Court decision in the case of Crandall v Nevada, 73 US 35; 18 L Ed (1867), speed limits and other traffic control devices, being non-fact-based, are simply an unlawful tax or impost on travel, and thus unconstitutional for the reason cited in Crandall. (Crandall involved a tax on travelers! which is what in essence speed limits, unscientific stop signs, etc., simply are, stripped of all the phony fraudulent politician folderol pretending them to relate somehow to safety, not to mention that are extortion violating the federal anti-racketeering act (RICO), 18 USC 1961 and the law against obstructing federal rights, 18 USC 241).
Colorado Article 42-2-101 clearly states, licensing is for commercial drivers, not private citizens..
"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.

"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125. Reaffirmed in Zemel v. Rusk 33 US 1.

"Where activities or enjoyment, natural and often necessary to the well being of an American citizen, such as travel, are involved, we will construe narrowly all delegated powers that curtail or dilute them... to repeat, we deal here with a constitutional right of the citizen..." Edwards v. California 314 US 160 (1941).

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission or unconstitutional taxation; i.e. - licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc., requiring financial consideration, which are more illegal taxes.)

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.

"The right to travel is protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment."
"Right to travel is constitutionally protected against private as well as public encroachment."
Volunteer Medical Clinic, Inc. V. Operation Rescue, 948 F2d 218; International Org. Of Masters, Etc. V. Andrews, 831, F2d 843; Zobel v. Williams, 457 US 55, 102 Sct. 2309.

"License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort." Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).

"Where an individual is detained, without a warrant and without having committed a crime (traffic infractions are not crimes), the detention is a false arrest and false imprisonment."
Damages Awarded: Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 241 F2d. 336 (11th CIR 1984)

"License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort." Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).

"The license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do." City of Louisville v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2D 248; 308 Ky. 420.

"The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it." Pavne v. Massev, 196 S.W. 2D 493; 145 Tex. 273; Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne, 127 Indiana 109; 26 NE 560, 561 (1891); 194 So 569 (1940).

"A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful." Littleton v. Buress, 82 P. 864, 866; 14 Wyo.173.

"A license, pure and simple, is a mere personal privilege...River Development Corp. V. Liberty Corp., 133 A. 2d 373, 385; 45 N.J. Super. 445.

"A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state or municipal granting it and the person to whom it is granted..."American States Water Services Co. Of Calif. V. Johnson, 88 P.2d 770, 774; 31 Cal. App.2d 606.

"A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms to its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights." Frost Trucking Co. V. Railroad Commission, 271 US 583, 589 (1924); Terral v. Burke Construction Company, 257 US 529, 532 (1922).

"It is clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation." Wingfield v. Fielder (1972) 29 CA3d 213.

"The acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not impose upon the licensee an obligation to respect or to comply with any provision of the statute or with the regulations prescribed that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." W. W. CARGILL CO. v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, 180 U.S. 452 (1901) 180 U.S. 452

"The word privilege is defined as a particular benefit, favor, or advantage, a right or immunity not enjoyed by all, or it may be enjoyed only under special conditions." Knoll Gold Club v. U.S., 179 Fed Supp. 377, 380.
"...those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege." City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910

Walter and Co. would do better in promoting these ideas if their general dehavior and language was more conducive to swaying fence sitter and not that which seems to be alienating even their most natural alies.

Is Walter right? IMO yes. Will this rude tactic succeed in any thing? Not unless it gives him standing to sue over an issue and he does and he wins.

Walter and Co. would do better in promoting these ideas if their general dehavior and language was more conducive to swaying fence sitter and not that which seems to be alienating even their most natural alies.

Is Walter right? IMO yes. Will this rude tactic succeed in any thing? Not unless it gives him standing to sue over an issue and he does and he wins.

Why not drive through the checkpoint with yellow glasses on and refuse to show ID or take FSTs while recording the event?

cato said:

SNIP Why not drive through the checkpoint with yellow glasses on and refuse to show ID or take FSTs while recording the event?

Click to expand...

What're "FSTs"?

Field Sobriety Test