Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 300

Thread: Somewhere between the 4th amendment and SB1108 I wound up in handcuffs

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    22

    Somewhere between the 4th amendment and SB1108 I wound up in handcuffs

    Thursday night after dinner I was doing some trouble shooting on my pickup, and took it for a road test. I stopped along the way to try some more things, pulling over near the access gate to the CAP canal. As I returned to the road I caught the eye of a sheriffs deputy, who turned and followed me. His explanation for the stop was my unlit/obstructed plate.

    Some things first,

    I was within 5 miles of my home, with tools on my dashboard.

    I get pulled over alot, every other time I have been agreeable and chatty, offering up my firearm for the officers saftey, and almost always get away with whatever law I was in blatant violation of. This isn't about how to get out of tickets, this is about the law.

    The reason for the stop, my plate, is not contested, it was unlit and obstructed.

    I had an attitude with the sheriffs department due to the murder of Jose Guerena, and the hasty investigations clearing all involved.




    I'll cut and paste the letter I fired off to a friend at 1am after the incident, please excuse the grammar, spelling and format, it was a long night.


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While pulling back onto the road I catch the eye of a pima county sheriff deputy, who flips around and follows me. I pull over before he catches up (no lights or sirens). I haven't been stopped by pcso since the Marine murder, and I'm not real happy about that, or being followed. My answers to the deputy are pretty short, he asked what I was doing on the side of the road (I had pulled over near the CAP canal where the shoulder is wide). I told him I was working on my truck (my multi meter, flashlight, and now brake light switch were on the dash). He asked what was wrong with it, "It's a dodge" was my reply. He got my license, reg, ins. Then asked if I had any weapons. "Yes". Started asking what, where, holstered, "I have a CCW permit, I have a revolver, under the armrest, unholstered. As he was starting to put a plan together to have me hand it over, I told him that I am not going to forfeit my firearm, but I do not mind stepping out of the vehicle. This didn't seem to upset him, he then asked me to step out. He asked me if I had any other weapons "just my pocketknife". (Which was visible, I had removed my soiled shirt to keep from staining the upholstery), He removes the knife that is clipped onto my pocket, then tells me that I need to turn around so he can pat me down.
    "Excuse me, I'm not ok with that"
    "Its for officer saftey"
    "We can wait for backup, besides you have my gun, you have my knife"
    "Please turn around"
    "I do not consent to a search"
    "Put your hands behind your back" I comply
    "Am I being detained?" as he cuffs me
    "No, this is just for my saftey, I'm not trying to be a dick"
    "I asked you for your firearm, you did not comply, I have the right to secure your firearm during a traffic stop, this is for my saftey"
    "Can you show me the law where you can take my firearm"
    "No, you can go home and look it up" He places my pocket knife on the dash of my truck.
    "Come over here and sit down" leads me to the back bumper of my truck, I comply, mostly, leaning on the tailgate.

    He walks back to his car, never opening my doors.

    A state trooper pulls up, converses with him and leaves.

    Three deputies pull up, and converse with him, one leaves, this skinhead cop keeps staring me down, trying to intimidate me. His other buddy is doing the same. So I take turns staring each of them down. They get the message.
    One maybe two more deputies show up.
    While the original one is still in his car trying to find something on me, the two come over. The skinhead is flashlighting my interior, he is sure I have something. The hispanic guy is making small talk, but digging. "Whats wrong with your truck?", my relatively technical answer seems to go over his head, or he thinks I'm lying, so I stop talking.
    "What's with the tires"
    (I have 15 tires in the bed of my truck, which was blocking the license plate in the back window, the stated cause for the stop)
    "I'm a hillbilly" and give him a stupid look.
    The two of them are now flashlighting the interior and bed of my truck, furiously, but not touching anything.

    The hispanic guy comes back and stands near me, skinhead still visually searching.
    "He can look all he wants, he's not going to find anything, this is the first time I've been in cuffs" I'm smirking by now
    "does he have a right to handcuff me?"
    "he does" Then he rambles about gun rights, people have guns, most people comply with requests, etc for a good minute
    "well, can you take them off now, my knife and gun are in the truck, there are 3 of you,and I'm getting bit by mosquitos"

    "It's his stop" motions to the 1st officer still in his car.

    Skinhead starts asking me about some bottles in my truck, passenger floorboard, in grocery bags, fresh from the store.
    "Whats in these bottles"
    "Soda"
    "Any alcohol in them"
    "No, no high fructose corn syrup either" I give more stupid looks
    "Do you mind if I look at them?"
    "Yes"
    "You do mind?"
    "Yes"
    I give deputy skinhead more stupid looks. The stupid look that says I'm on the side of the road, in handcuffs, shirtless, with now 5 deputies because I have invoked my 2nd and 4th ammendment rights in regards to my firearm, a search of my person, a search of my truck, and this stupid mongloid thinks I'm going to let him touch my cream soda?

    Mongo looks really confused and kinda upset. He walks up to hispanic guy,
    "Can we?"
    "No"
    I'm 99% sure that was in regards to opening my doors, because Deputy Skinhead Mongo looked really saddend, and dissapeared into the night.

    Now deputy #5 walks up, he's a beta male, seems nice. More small talk, digging.

    "Is this your truck"
    "Yes"
    "What are you doing with the tires"

    The guy seems nice, so I spill the big redneck tire smuggling conspiracy, about how I scrapped some cars, and instead of trying to sell them where I live (far from town) I left them with a friend in town, to sell for a cut, but he had a baby and doesn't have time, so I picked them up.

    He seems a little disappointed and walked away.

    Officer 1 comes back with my paperwork and a written warning. Un-cuffs me and tells me that the warning is for the license plate, going back and forth between obstructed, and no light, he wasn't real clear on that.

    "Is my knife on the dash"
    "Yes"

    I set my documents in the truck. I'm thinking these guys might mess with me again tonight, so before leaving, with them all standing around, I grab my plate from the back window, get a flashlight and a screwdriver, install my plate on the bumper, get in my truck and leave.


    I was handcuffed for approximately 40 minutes, and questioned by 5 deputies, because I would not surrender my firearm. I consider him taking it to his car to be "seizing" however temporary. Once at his vehicle, they almost always run the serial number. This is "searching", no way around it. It's no different than him checking to see the serial numbers on my cash, or whose name is on my underwear.

    He said that it is a state law that he can secure my weapon during a traffic stop. I believe that this was introduced in the bill recognizing constitutional carry. Odd, and disturbing that a law recognizing the 2nd ammendment and the right to carry, would contain wording that tramples on my 4th ammendment rights.


    Any insight on the law?
    Any insight on the right to handcuff me for his saftey, after stating what weapons I had and where, and offering to separate myself from them, for his saftey.


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SB1108 here

    http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/07/...n-law-sb-1108/

    J. IF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CONTACTS A PERSON WHO IS IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MAY TAKE TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF THE FIREARM FOR THE DURATION OF THAT CONTACT.
    The law was mainly removing anything pertaining to a CCW permit from current code, but they ADDED this. ^^^

    When reading the press release in the paper when this was up for law, my heart sank when I read that it allowed the officer to "secure" the weapon. But, it is very reasonable to me that my weapon would become very secure by me removing myself from the area the weapon is in. But, it turns out the actual law says "temporary custody". Not good.

    This is in violation of my, our, 4th amendment rights. "temporary custody" is "seizure", and once the gun goes back to the cruiser, they will run the serial # 75% of the time (thats my experience, I've been pulled over alot). That is a search. No different than an officer taking your wallet back to his car to run the $1s and $5s through the treasurys database.

    So, did the deputy have a right to "officer saftey" me in handcuffs for 40 minutes?

    What to do about the law?

    I look forward to your responses.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Upon any "get out of vehicle," LOCK IT.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  3. #3
    Regular Member Grimes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    132
    If this was even remotely real, you acted very poorly and thus caused yourself this grief by acting stupid and smartassish.

    BUT, this is obviously a troll thread.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    Upon any "get out of vehicle," LOCK IT.
    Yep, thats the new plan, This time I wasn't prepared for it, I had the power windows down, I had the keys on the dash, habit from 13yrs worth of traffic stops, registration, insurance, drivers license in different places, cell phone out of reach. This will be different next time, one window half way down, engine off, key on, docs in envelope instead of loose in console, will put pocketknife with firearm before officer appears at door, roll up window, grab keys,phone, wallet, docs, step out, lock door, place items in pockets.




    Grimes, kick rocks, somethings you read on the internet are real.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimes View Post
    If this was even remotely real, you acted very poorly and thus caused yourself this grief by acting stupid and smartassish.

    BUT, this is obviously a troll thread.
    No, it is not "obviously a troll thread."
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  6. #6
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by HILLBILLYDELUXE View Post
    Any insight on the law?
    ARS 13-3102.K (cops can take temporary custody - reflects Terry v. Ohio)

    Terry v. Ohio - U.S. Supreme Court says cops can take custody (1968 decision).

    Arizona v. Johnson - U.S Supreme Court says cops can take custody for even broader reasons than Terry v. Ohio (2009 decision).

    The heaviest thing about carrying a gun is the responsbility that comes with it.

    Fred

  7. #7
    Regular Member Super Saiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    155
    I can definitely understand why you would have a problem with your firearm being temporarily seized by a cop (or anyone for that matter), but at the same time I can understand why a cop would want to do it. We could sit here and argue the 2nd and 4th Amendments all day long, and would probably agree with each other 99.9% of the time too, but the fact remains that ARS says that cops can do exactly what they did to you, and since you wouldn't follow lawful orders/directions, your incident escalated to the point that it did. From what I read, the cops seem to have been pretty professional and did not overstep their authority, that is, going into your vehicle anyway and searching, making up RAS, etc. I wasn't there, but given the incident as you described it, this is my opinion.
    I also think it's important to understand that LE is a tough job. Yeah, I know, its no excuse to trample all over people's rights, and that's NOT what I'm advocating. What I'm saying is that many of them are not cautious around weapons simply because they want to mess with you or make themselves feel big and bad, but because they don't know you, don't trust you, and don't want to die because they were too lax concerning safety. Is officer safety more important that Constitutional Rights? Depends on who you ask, however arguing this while in your particular situation can certainly get you cuffed, detained, questioned, and so forth.
    On a side note, I must admit that I chuckled when I read your high fructose corn syrup statement.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    22
    I researched "terry" . I'm hardly terry, I was seen leaving an area, not looking in a window 24 times. I turned my interior lights on, shut off my truck, and kept my hands where they could be seen. When asked to identify myself I produced a state ID, not mumbling a name. When asked what I was doing, I told him, and my tools were in plain sight, on the dashboard. Once he started questioning my story, I got a little smart. I don't have to state that I have a weapon unless asked, when asked I verified.

    Having "Terry" apply in my situation would be a hard case to make, considering how hard it was to apply to Terry himself.

  9. #9
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by HILLBILLYDELUXE View Post
    13yrs worth of traffic stops
    What makes you a magnet for traffic stops?

    I'm 64 years old and have been driving for at least 48 years (since I was 16) and can count on one hand the number of times that I've been pulled over.

    Fred
    Last edited by azcdlfred; 09-26-2011 at 03:57 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Saiyan View Post
    I can definitely understand why you would have a problem with your firearm being temporarily seized by a cop (or anyone for that matter), but at the same time I can understand why a cop would want to do it. We could sit here and argue the 2nd and 4th Amendments all day long, and would probably agree with each other 99.9% of the time too, but the fact remains that ARS says that cops can do exactly what they did to you, and since you wouldn't follow lawful orders/directions, your incident escalated to the point that it did. From what I read, the cops seem to have been pretty professional and did not overstep their authority, that is, going into your vehicle anyway and searching, making up RAS, etc. I wasn't there, but given the incident as you described it, this is my opinion.
    I also think it's important to understand that LE is a tough job. Yeah, I know, its no excuse to trample all over people's rights, and that's NOT what I'm advocating. What I'm saying is that many of them are not cautious around weapons simply because they want to mess with you or make themselves feel big and bad, but because they don't know you, don't trust you, and don't want to die because they were too lax concerning safety. Is officer safety more important that Constitutional Rights? Depends on who you ask, however arguing this while in your particular situation can certainly get you cuffed, detained, questioned, and so forth.
    On a side note, I must admit that I chuckled when I read your high fructose corn syrup statement.
    The 1st officer was professional, I'm still not convinced he was justified in cuffing me. As for separating the gun from the driver for officer saftey, I have no problem with that, hence my offer to step out of the truck, leaving an unarmed man, and an inanimate object in a vacant vehicle.

    I seriously believe that the deputy understood that the law was flawed, I think that he was on the phone with his supervisor for half an hour discussing it in his car. I believe that someone, either on the scene or on the phone had to say, "wait a minute, lets not push that". With the 5-6 deputies that came and went, one of them would have said, "screw it" and reached in and grabbed my revolver.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by azcdlfred View Post
    What makes you a magnet for traffic stops?

    I'm 64 years old and have been driving for at least 48 years (since I was 16) and can count on one hand the number of times that I've been pulled over.

    Fred
    I live and work in a rural area, I speed. I frequently buy vehicles in disrepair and drive them a bit with out of date tags, while carrying a folded up open title in my pocket. I'm well aware of how to handle a traffic stop without getting ticketed. In the past I have given up liberties for economic security, but chose not to this time.

  12. #12
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme
    Upon any "get out of vehicle," LOCK IT.
    +100! Roll up the windows, lock the doors, keys in pocket. (Doesn't always stop them from illegally searching your pockets to get the keys, then illegally searching the vehicle... BTDT, got the $ettlement.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimes
    If this was even remotely real, you acted very poorly and thus caused yourself this grief by acting stupid and smartassish.
    Explain, please, how a citizen exercising his rights is "acting stupid & smartassish"?
    The original cop caused the problem, not the OP (other than by having the tag not completely visible).

    Quote Originally Posted by Super Saiyan
    since you wouldn't follow lawful orders/directions, your incident escalated to the point that it did.
    Except that the orders weren't lawful.
    There was no RAS of the OP being a threat, so the "we can disarm you & handcuff you for 'officer safety'" BS doesn't apply.
    The person has to be armed AND dangerous. One does not equal the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by SS
    they don't know you, don't trust you, and don't want to die because they were too lax concerning safety.
    If the OP had intended to harm the officer, he would have been shot before seeing a DL.
    The OP certainly wouldn't have admitted to being lawfully armed, or offered to separate himself from the tool.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 09-26-2011 at 08:53 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    No, it is not "obviously a troll thread."

    +1, agree.


    Quote Originally Posted by azcdlfred View Post

    The heaviest thing about carrying a gun is the responsbility that comes with it.

    Fred
    I will borrow that one!

    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    +100! Roll up the windows, lock the doors, keys in pocket. (Doesn't always stop them from illegally searching your pockets to get the keys, then illegally searching the vehicle... BTDT, got the $ettlement.)

    ...snip....

    There was no RAS of the OP being a threat, so the "we can disarm you & handcuff you for 'officer safety'" BS doesn't apply.
    The person has to be armed AND dangerous. One does not equal the other.
    Ya can't have one, ya can't have none without the oooother....
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  14. #14
    Regular Member TigerLily's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Polygammyville, Utah
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Saiyan View Post

    From what I read, the cops seem to have been pretty professional and did not overstep their authority, that is, going into your vehicle anyway and searching, making up RAS, etc.
    Pretty professional? So as long as you get a glass of wine and a little lube it's okay to rape you of your rights?



    Quote Originally Posted by Super Saiyan View Post

    I also think it's important to understand that LE is a tough job.
    Didn't even rank the top most dangerous jobs in 2010 in the NY Times. You have a better chance of getting killed on the job for being a roofer than for being a cop. http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?p=3542

    And with so many people being killed by cops, I'd say it's far more dangerous to be a citizen who dares to exercise their rights than to be a cop. I was cuffed for 56 minutes myself after I was given an UNLAWFUL order to "put your camera down." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY4R4hERCaA I guess an open carrying old lady with a dog leash in one hand and a cam in the other is one hell of a "safety" hazard to what ended up being FOUR armed cops against one unarmed, handcuffed granny.


    Quote Originally Posted by Super Saiyan View Post

    Yeah, I know, its no excuse to trample all over people's rights, and that's NOT what I'm advocating.
    At least somewhere lost in your consciousness you appear to recognize the "wrongness" of what happened. And you quickly make excuses. That's called being in denial and enabling the violators.


    Quote Originally Posted by Super Saiyan View Post

    What I'm saying is that many of them are not cautious around weapons simply because they want to mess with you or make themselves feel big and bad, but because they don't know you, don't trust you, and don't want to die because they were too lax concerning safety.
    The other way to look at it is that they are too cowardly to do their jobs WITHOUT violating the Constitution. But then again, where else can a coward find high pay with all the backing of unions, media, and society? Never mind the few they might have wrongly killed - in the name of "officer safety" of course. As long as the vast majority of society is willing to be herded like sheeple and castigated like chattel for failing to obey UNLAWFUL orders, we will continue to lose more ground to "rights." I put the word RIGHTS in quotations - because really and truly there is no right in the U.S. (or perhaps anywhere) that cannot be TAKEN away. Not one. Even your "right" to THINK can be altered by force via drugs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Super Saiyan View Post

    Is officer safety more important that Constitutional Rights?

    Of course it is, silly you! Just ask any LEO and he or she will explain it to you. But don't be so stupid to ask your public servants while they're working, or you might just find YOURSELF cuffed, detained, sent to a holding tank for oh... say 24 hours. Their work much too important and "dangerous" and we mere taxpayers (the people who pay their salaries) are hardly worthy to even look at them.
    YouTube OC activism vids: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...ature=view_all
    TigerLily's Freedom ROAR Radio show
    Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/TLRoar/
    Blog: http://tlroar.blogspot.com/
    http://guerrillalawfare.com/
    http://tigerlilsblog.blogspot.com/
    I don't ride to be safe, I ride to be free.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Super Saiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    Except that the orders weren't lawful.
    There was no RAS of the OP being a threat, so the "we can disarm you & handcuff you for 'officer safety'" BS doesn't apply.
    The person has to be armed AND dangerous. One does not equal the other.


    If the OP had intended to harm the officer, he would have been shot before seeing a DL.
    The OP certainly wouldn't have admitted to being lawfully armed, or offered to separate himself from the tool.
    Actually, no, the person does not have "to be armed and dangerous" for a cop to temporarily seize your firearm. Arizona Revised Statues 13-3102 K states that "If a law enforcement officer contacts a person who is in possession of a firearm, the law enforcement officer may take temporary custody of the firearm for the duration of that contact."
    Do you live in Arizona? Do you carry a firearm? If so, I strongly suggest you do a little homework on the laws out here and correct your ignorance before you end up in jail or worse.
    Also, I thought it was fairly obvious in my response to the OP that I'm not in favor of this, especially considering that my first sentence included "I can definitely understand why you would have a problem with your firearm being temporarily seized by a cop..." but for whatever reason you seem to have missed that.
    Last edited by Super Saiyan; 09-27-2011 at 01:27 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Super Saiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by TigerLily View Post
    Pretty professional? So as long as you get a glass of wine and a little lube it's okay to rape you of your rights?
    Your unfavorable opinion on what occured here is trivial. The officers were professional in the way that they carried out their duties, as outlined in ARS 13-3102K. I didn't read anywhere in the OPs original post that they harmed him, searched his vehicle without consent, used vulgarity, sarcasm, or anything along those lines. So in retrospect, yes, anyone with a shred of common sense can state that the incident, regardless of your opinions on the Constitutionality of it, was conducted in a "pretty professional" manner.


    Quote Originally Posted by TigerLily View Post
    Didn't even rank the top most dangerous jobs in 2010 in the NY Times. You have a better chance of getting killed on the job for being a roofer than for being a cop. http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?p=3542
    Just because it's not a top ranking dangerous job does not mean that it isn't a dangerous job. At no point did I state that it was the most dangerous job on the face of the planet. Rather, I stated that I could understand why they may want to temporarily disarm someone while they are in contact with them based on the fact that people get shot. Again, I stated that I could understand, not necessarily agree with, their actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by TigerLily View Post
    And with so many people being killed by cops, I'd say it's far more dangerous to be a citizen who dares to exercise their rights than to be a cop. I was cuffed for 56 minutes myself after I was given an UNLAWFUL order to "put your camera down." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY4R4hERCaA I guess an open carrying old lady with a dog leash in one hand and a cam in the other is one hell of a "safety" hazard to what ended up being FOUR armed cops against one unarmed, handcuffed granny.
    Your incident did not occur in Arizona, thus ARS 13-3102K does not apply. I have absolutely no idea what your local gun laws are, but unlike you I won't ASSume I do. In a perfect world, the 2nd Amendment would be all that we need to exercise our right to bear arms, but we don't live in a perfect world. Unfortunately, the States have mandated all of their own little laws regarding firearms and unless you want to suffer the consequences, you follow them. If you want to be the poster child for getting rid of non-federal firearms restrictions, feel free to walk down the streets of NYC OCing in protest. Let me know how that works out for you...

    Quote Originally Posted by TigerLily View Post
    At least somewhere lost in your consciousness you appear to recognize the "wrongness" of what happened. And you quickly make excuses. That's called being in denial and enabling the violators.
    Considering I started my post with: "I can definitely understand why you would have a problem with your firearm being temporarily seized by a cop (or anyone for that matter)..." I think it's quite obvious that I recognized the "wrongness" of the situation. At no point did I say that I agreed with the actions of the cops, nor did I make excuses for them. You and I seem to have two completely different ways of handling situations like these. I try and understand why someone does what they do, as it helps me to figure out how to handle them. You on the other hand seem to prefer the frothing at the mouth, talk trash to some random guy online even though he actually is on my side approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by TigerLily View Post
    The other way to look at it is that they are too cowardly to do their jobs WITHOUT violating the Constitution. But then again, where else can a coward find high pay with all the backing of unions, media, and society? Never mind the few they might have wrongly killed - in the name of "officer safety" of course. As long as the vast majority of society is willing to be herded like sheeple and castigated like chattel for failing to obey UNLAWFUL orders, we will continue to lose more ground to "rights." I put the word RIGHTS in quotations - because really and truly there is no right in the U.S. (or perhaps anywhere) that cannot be TAKEN away. Not one. Even your "right" to THINK can be altered by force via drugs.
    Um...okay. Go off on tangents much? Once again, at no point did I state that I agreed with what the cops did, I simply stated that per Arizona Revised Statues, they had the legal authority to disarm him.


    Quote Originally Posted by TigerLily View Post
    Of course it is, silly you! Just ask any LEO and he or she will explain it to you. But don't be so stupid to ask your public servants while they're working, or you might just find YOURSELF cuffed, detained, sent to a holding tank for oh... say 24 hours. Their work much too important and "dangerous" and we mere taxpayers (the people who pay their salaries) are hardly worthy to even look at them.
    As with most of your response (more like irrational babble), nice work with the cut and paste job. Tell me, were you a butcher in your youth? You really are good at cutting out parts of my post in order to make yourself seem smarter than you really are.

    You know, if you weren't so quick to make ASSumptions, you'd have realized that I'm actually on your side on this issue. Then again, for you common sense is seemingly fleeting...
    Last edited by Super Saiyan; 09-27-2011 at 02:19 AM.

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Saiyan View Post
    .......snip......

    As with most of your response (more like irrational babble), nice work with the cut and paste job. Tell me, were you a butcher in your youth? You really are good at cutting out parts of my post in order to make yourself seem smarter than you really are.

    You know, if you weren't so quick to make ASSumptions, you'd have realized that I'm actually on your side on this issue. Then again, for you common sense is seemingly fleeting...
    Saivan - your posts and insight are appreciated. The personal attacks and insults are NOT - strongly suggest avoiding that technique.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Saiyan View Post
    Your unfavorable opinion on what occured here is trivial. The officers were professional in the way that they carried out their duties, as outlined in ARS 13-3102K. I didn't read anywhere in the OPs original post that they harmed him, searched his vehicle without consent, used vulgarity, sarcasm, or anything along those lines. So in retrospect, yes, anyone with a shred of common sense can state that the incident, regardless of your opinions on the Constitutionality of it, was conducted in a "pretty professional" manner.
    So, are you saying that ARS overrides SCOTUS rulings on that specific? How do you see the specific under the microscope of Terry V Ohio?


    M. For the purposes of this section:

    1. "Contacted by a law enforcement officer" means a lawful traffic or criminal investigation, arrest or detention or an investigatory stop by a law enforcement officer that is based on reasonable suspicion that an offense has been or is about to be committed.
    HOw long has that statute been on the books?
    Last edited by wrightme; 09-27-2011 at 08:32 AM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    HOw long has that statute been on the books?



    So, are you saying that ARS overrides SCOTUS rulings on that specific? How do you see the specific under the microscope of Terry V Ohio?


    SB1108 effective date July 29th 2010.


    I DID NOT READ THE LAW PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT

    I was operating under the "officer may secure" used in the press releases in the papers last year when this bill was in the works. My intentions were misapplied.

    I have learned a lesson here, a couple actually.

    This wasn't about me being a dick, it was about picking a time to assert my constitutional rights, not having my privacy invaded, without much threat to my security, my papers were in order, I did not have passengers, especially my children with me, I wasn't up against an expensive ticket, I had the time to deny the requests and question the orders. People say "pick your battles", well, you've gotta do it sometime!

    My intention was to have a "teachable moment" with an officer and show that the 4th amendment applies to all of my personal belongings, even my weapons.

    Well, it turns out that he could have taken "temporary custody" of my weapon during the traffic stop, and likely could have arrested me for obstruction or some such.

    The interesting thing, he cuffed me, him and his buddies spent a great deal of time and effort questioning me and inspecting my vehicle, to obtain probable cause for a search. The 1st deputy spent most of his time in his cruiser. I think he, or his supervisor figured out that the state law, which I was likely in violation of, was in violation of the 4th amendment. The state law was the means, him and his fellow deputies seemed to have motive, yet they DID NOT SEARCH MY TRUCK OR MY WEAPON. I think that someone along the line realized that this was a poorly written law, and did not want to be involved in the test case.

    Even though I have a beef with the pcso, my only valid complaints about this stop, is that I was cuffed, delayed, and that two of the deputies acted childish when they tried to intimidate me with excessive eye contact.

    My valid beef at this point, is that the state law is in blatant violation of the 4th amendment.
    I just fired off a letter to the president of AZCDL, and intend to send one to Sen Pearce as well, from what I can see, he authored it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    So, are you saying that ARS overrides SCOTUS rulings on that specific?
    Arizona law (ARS) flows from the Arizona Constitution. In Arizona your right to bear arms comes from Article 2, Section 26, subject to state (i.e, Dano v. Collins) and federal court interpretations. Constitutional Carry was a result of Arizona's Constitution and laws - the Second Amendment had nothing to do with it.

    The Second Amendment defines what the federal government cannot do to it's citizens. Under the Heller decision, the Second Amendment is much weaker than Arizona's Article 2, Section 26. Until the recent McDonald case, the Second Amendment did not apply to the state governments. If you notice, after the McDonald case, states like California, Illinois, New York, etc. have not changed their anti-rights position or laws. That will only happen when they are forced to by Federal Court decisions in favor of people or groups who have the hundreds of thousands of dollars to gamble on a coin toss.

    The same applies to Arizona. If you want to use the Second Amendment, rather than the Arizona Constitution to enforce your right to bear arms, you'll need to do it via an expensive law suit (and maybe even some prison time).

    The easier way is to use the stronger Arizona Constitution and state laws and work through the legislature like AzCDL has successfully done.

    How long has that statute been on the books?
    It was part of the final language that gave us Constitutional Carry. Since it codifies Terry v. Ohio, it's not adding anything. On the plus side, the lack of a statute like ARS 13-3102.K means law enforcement could default to Arizona v. Johnson which has much looser standards for disarming a person.

    Fred
    Last edited by azcdlfred; 09-27-2011 at 01:32 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Misplaced response. The applicable SCOTUS decision is Terry v Ohio, which I called to. It is about stops for RAS, and is specific as to searches for "officer safety." I suggest you review it.


    Quote Originally Posted by azcdlfred View Post
    Arizona law (ARS) flows from the Arizona Constitution. In Arizona your right to bear arms comes from Article 2, Section 26, subject to state (i.e, Dano v. Collins) and federal court interpretations. Constitutional Carry was a result of Arizona's Constitution and laws - the Second Amendment had nothing to do with it.

    The Second Amendment defines what the federal government cannot do to it's citizens. Under the Heller decision, the Second Amendment is much weaker than Arizona's Article 2, Section 26. Until the recent McDonald case, the Second Amendment did not apply to the state governments. If you notice, after the McDonald case, states like California, Illinois, New York, etc. have not changed their anti-rights position or laws. That will only happen when they are forced to by Federal Court decisions in favor of people or groups who have the hundreds of thousands of dollars to gamble on a coin toss.

    The same applies to Arizona. If you want to use the Second Amendment, rather than the Arizona Constitution to enforce your right to bear arms, you'll need to do it via an expensive law suit (and maybe even some prison time).

    The easier way is to use the stronger Arizona Constitution and state laws and work through the legislature like AzCDL has successfully done.

    It was part of the final language that gave us Constitutional Carry. Since it codifies Terry v. Ohio, it's not adding anything. On the plus side, the lack of a statute like ARS 13-3102.K means law enforcement could default to Arizona v. Johnson which has much looser standards for disarming a person.

    Fred
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by HILLBILLYDELUXE View Post
    SB1108 effective date July 29th 2010.


    I DID NOT READ THE LAW PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT

    I was operating under the "officer may secure" used in the press releases in the papers last year when this bill was in the works. My intentions were misapplied.

    I have learned a lesson here, a couple actually.

    This wasn't about me being a dick, it was about picking a time to assert my constitutional rights, not having my privacy invaded, without much threat to my security, my papers were in order, I did not have passengers, especially my children with me, I wasn't up against an expensive ticket, I had the time to deny the requests and question the orders. People say "pick your battles", well, you've gotta do it sometime!

    My intention was to have a "teachable moment" with an officer and show that the 4th amendment applies to all of my personal belongings, even my weapons.

    Well, it turns out that he could have taken "temporary custody" of my weapon during the traffic stop, and likely could have arrested me for obstruction or some such.The interesting thing, he cuffed me, him and his buddies spent a great deal of time and effort questioning me and inspecting my vehicle, to obtain probable cause for a search. The 1st deputy spent most of his time in his cruiser. I think he, or his supervisor figured out that the state law, which I was likely in violation of, was in violation of the 4th amendment. The state law was the means, him and his fellow deputies seemed to have motive, yet they DID NOT SEARCH MY TRUCK OR MY WEAPON. I think that someone along the line realized that this was a poorly written law, and did not want to be involved in the test case.

    Even though I have a beef with the pcso, my only valid complaints about this stop, is that I was cuffed, delayed, and that two of the deputies acted childish when they tried to intimidate me with excessive eye contact.

    My valid beef at this point, is that the state law is in blatant violation of the 4th amendment.
    I just fired off a letter to the president of AZCDL, and intend to send one to Sen Pearce as well, from what I can see, he authored it.
    Well, "as it turns out," IMHO, ARS is in conflict with SCOTUS concerning Terry Stops, and frankly, looks to be ripe for challenge. But, I do not recommend that course of action, unless you are "in it for the long haul," with lawyers and money.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  23. #23
    Regular Member Super Saiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    So, are you saying that ARS overrides SCOTUS rulings on that specific? How do you see the specific under the microscope of Terry V Ohio?
    As I have previously stated: "In a perfect world, the 2nd Amendment would be all that we need to exercise our right to bear arms, but we don't live in a perfect world. Unfortunately, the States have mandated all of their own little laws regarding firearms and unless you want to suffer the consequences, you follow them."
    Next time you're stopped while carrying, feel free to tell your local cops that their state laws regarding firearms don't apply because of SCOTUS rulings, and then refuse to be cooperative with them. When you get out of prison (assuming that you survive the encounter), come back on here and let me know how that all worked out.
    Last edited by Super Saiyan; 09-27-2011 at 02:37 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Super Saiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Saivan - your posts and insight are appreciated. The personal attacks and insults are NOT - strongly suggest avoiding that technique.
    Thanks, dad.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Saiyan View Post
    As I have previously stated: "In a perfect world, the 2nd Amendment would be all that we need to exercise our right to bear arms, but we don't live in a perfect world. Unfortunately, the States have mandated all of their own little laws regarding firearms and unless you want to suffer the consequences, you follow them."
    Next time you're stopped while carrying, feel free to tell your local cops that their state laws regarding firearms don't apply because of SCOTUS rulings, and then refuse to be cooperative with them. When you get out of prison (assuming that you survive the encounter), come back on here and let me know how that all worked out.
    Have you reviewed Terry v Ohio or not? It isn't about whether you can carry a firearm or not. It is specifically about RAS searches for "officer safety." Do you desire to discuss that specific that YOU pointed out in the statute, or do you simply want to hide behind something unrelated to avoid having to learn about it?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Page 1 of 12 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
  •