Okay, I think it's important to make some FACTS clear before I get started citing law and constitution... First of all, the rights which were detailed in several amendments to the United States Constitution were written to guarantee the representatives which make up the government entity would not be in a position to be giving permission to you, us, "the people," to do things which we were born capable of.
There are, of course, certain things we must surrender in order to become a society, like our natural capability to take life, limb, or possessions from another human being for whatever reason we decide, i.e. no reason, because they had a relationship with your daughter, or because you don't like them. We gave up this natural executive power in order to remove passion from justice. This way when someone does you wrong your peers, hopefully, will see things your way and punish the offender. This is how we do things in a society. There are, however, natural abilities, called "natural rights" which have been bestowed upon us by God, Allah, the Creator, or, for my purposes here and elsewhere in political literature, NATURE.
Notwithstanding this surrendering of your natural executive power, the founders of this country thought it wise to retain, in law, some of the natural rights of man to.... man. Man meaning YOU (man, woman, child, ...other). Two of these rights are markedly more important than all the others. Markedly more important by an order of MAGNITUDE I might add. These two rights are guaranteed to the people in two amendments to the United States Constitution in amendments two and four. I think I can safely assume most of the readers here are familiar with the former, however, upon reading many of the posts/responses in the Arizona section of OpenCarry.org, I have determined that many forum users who hail from this beloved state of theirs do not fully understand the ladder.
Allow me to explain, but before I do (and I am NOT trying to insult anyone's intelligence) I think it is important to quote the 4th amendment in case anyone has forgotten what it says exactly.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This amendment was, and is, meant to allow people who are not committing crimes to be secure in their persons and property. This is the executive power given to the judicial branch. What that means is this is the ONLY check the judges have over their street level officer counterparts which directly effects a street level situation while it is taking place. It is EXTRAORDINARILY important that this right be enforced in every conceivable way. Why? Well, to answer that question you'll have to do a bit more reading.
Please keep in mind while you read the following laws that not every one applies to the fourth amendment issue but they are still very important, and very disturbing, because of how they are worded. Try to keep in mind that there are many ways to interpret words and some laws leave themselves open to interpretation which can misconstrue their original meaning. Also, don't forget what I said about the government isn't supposed to be giving permission...
13-3102. Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions
A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:
1. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation:
(b) When contacted by a law enforcement officer and failing to accurately answer the officer if the officer asks whether the person is carrying a concealed deadly weapon;
6. Defacing a deadly weapon;
10. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering any public establishment or attending any public event and carrying a deadly weapon on his person after a reasonable request by the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event or the sponsor's agent to remove his weapon and place it in the custody of the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event for temporary and secure storage of the weapon pursuant to section 13-3102.01;
11. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering an election polling place on the day of any election carrying a deadly weapon;
13. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering a nuclear or hydroelectric generating station carrying a deadly weapon on his person or within the immediate control of any person;
K. 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.
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.
I don't think I really need to say much else... Except, I want to pose a few questions.
What happened to fourth amendment rights?
What happened to this:
26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
Is it okay for an officer to charge you with a felony simply because you don't answer a question?
Is it important that a police officer's "safety" be held above yours because you're honest?
What is with Police being able to "take temporary custody of the firearm?"
Are you really okay with this?
Ask yourself these questions and please let me know what you think and why.
Semper Fidelis.
There are, of course, certain things we must surrender in order to become a society, like our natural capability to take life, limb, or possessions from another human being for whatever reason we decide, i.e. no reason, because they had a relationship with your daughter, or because you don't like them. We gave up this natural executive power in order to remove passion from justice. This way when someone does you wrong your peers, hopefully, will see things your way and punish the offender. This is how we do things in a society. There are, however, natural abilities, called "natural rights" which have been bestowed upon us by God, Allah, the Creator, or, for my purposes here and elsewhere in political literature, NATURE.
Notwithstanding this surrendering of your natural executive power, the founders of this country thought it wise to retain, in law, some of the natural rights of man to.... man. Man meaning YOU (man, woman, child, ...other). Two of these rights are markedly more important than all the others. Markedly more important by an order of MAGNITUDE I might add. These two rights are guaranteed to the people in two amendments to the United States Constitution in amendments two and four. I think I can safely assume most of the readers here are familiar with the former, however, upon reading many of the posts/responses in the Arizona section of OpenCarry.org, I have determined that many forum users who hail from this beloved state of theirs do not fully understand the ladder.
Allow me to explain, but before I do (and I am NOT trying to insult anyone's intelligence) I think it is important to quote the 4th amendment in case anyone has forgotten what it says exactly.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This amendment was, and is, meant to allow people who are not committing crimes to be secure in their persons and property. This is the executive power given to the judicial branch. What that means is this is the ONLY check the judges have over their street level officer counterparts which directly effects a street level situation while it is taking place. It is EXTRAORDINARILY important that this right be enforced in every conceivable way. Why? Well, to answer that question you'll have to do a bit more reading.
Please keep in mind while you read the following laws that not every one applies to the fourth amendment issue but they are still very important, and very disturbing, because of how they are worded. Try to keep in mind that there are many ways to interpret words and some laws leave themselves open to interpretation which can misconstrue their original meaning. Also, don't forget what I said about the government isn't supposed to be giving permission...
13-3102. Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions
A. A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:
1. Carrying a deadly weapon except a pocket knife concealed on his person or within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation:
(b) When contacted by a law enforcement officer and failing to accurately answer the officer if the officer asks whether the person is carrying a concealed deadly weapon;
6. Defacing a deadly weapon;
10. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering any public establishment or attending any public event and carrying a deadly weapon on his person after a reasonable request by the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event or the sponsor's agent to remove his weapon and place it in the custody of the operator of the establishment or the sponsor of the event for temporary and secure storage of the weapon pursuant to section 13-3102.01;
11. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering an election polling place on the day of any election carrying a deadly weapon;
13. Unless specifically authorized by law, entering a nuclear or hydroelectric generating station carrying a deadly weapon on his person or within the immediate control of any person;
K. 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.
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.
I don't think I really need to say much else... Except, I want to pose a few questions.
What happened to fourth amendment rights?
What happened to this:
26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
Is it okay for an officer to charge you with a felony simply because you don't answer a question?
Is it important that a police officer's "safety" be held above yours because you're honest?
What is with Police being able to "take temporary custody of the firearm?"
Are you really okay with this?
Ask yourself these questions and please let me know what you think and why.
Semper Fidelis.
Last edited:
