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

azcdlfred said:

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

Click to expand...

HILLBILLYDELUXE said:

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.

Click to expand...

wrightme said:

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?

Click to expand...

Grapeshot said:

Saivan - your posts and insight are appreciated. The personal attacks and insults are NOT - strongly suggest avoiding that technique.

Click to expand...

Super Saiyan said:

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.

Click to expand...

Super Saiyan said:

Thanks, dad.

Click to expand...

wrightme said:

Actually, you should say "thanks Mod." He reminded you of the rules for a reason........

Click to expand...

wrightme said:

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?

Click to expand...

Super Saiyan said:

Discuss what? My opinion is the same as yours; ARS 13-3102 K and anything like it is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, I don't have a plethora of cash just laying around to take the issue all the way up to the SCOTUS, and until you do, you can ease up off my back about it.

Click to expand...

Super Saiyan said:

I don't feel like getting shot. If a cop pulls me over in Arizona and asks if I have a firearm, I am going to be honest with him/her. If he demands that I temporarily surrender the weapon to him, I am going to state that I do not consent to searches or seizures, however I will relinquish the weapon out of fear for my own safety. Is that okay with you? Or, should I refuse to cooperate and potentially get shot and killed, or thrown in prison just so that you can use me as your martyr on this forum? No thanks.

Click to expand...

azcdlfred said:

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

Click to expand...

Sonora Rebel said:

I think if you go looking for a problem it will find you.

Click to expand...

wrightme said:

"The right is recognized," yet statute lets you be disarmed absend RAS? Do you feel that the ARS fits into the scope of a Terry Stop or not?

Click to expand...

TigerLily said:

Open carrying is "looking for a problem?" Exercising our constitutional rights is "looking for a problem?"

Then I bet you'll be elated to see what the cops did to these liberals over their 1A.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgr3DiqWYCI&feature=player_embedded

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

Saivan - your posts and insight are appreciated. The personal attacks and insults are NOT - strongly suggest avoiding that technique.

Click to expand...

Super Saiyan said:

Thanks, dad.

Click to expand...

TigerLily said:

Open carrying is "looking for a problem?" Exercising our constitutional rights is "looking for a problem?"

Then I bet you'll be elated to see what the cops did to these liberals over their 1A.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgr3DiqWYCI&feature=player_embedded

Click to expand...

Super Saiyan said:

I'm trembling in fear... :uhoh:

Click to expand...

Grapeshot said:

Saiyan you are still relatively new here, so will give you the benefit of the doubt. I was quite serious with my words - these posts are read by politicians, media, antis as well as the general public. Tone and temper of postings do mean a lot. I moderate with that constantly in mind - it is part of my job description.

Click to expand...

wrightme said:

I must have missed the part where you said you agreed with me.......


It isn't about "is that okay with [me]" at all.

But, I do see that now you agree that the ARS is possibly unconstututionally overriding SCOTUS decision, as I had stated earlier.

Click to expand...