A question for LEO's and gun confiscation [Archive]

19k40ret

May 06, 2008, 22:34

We are under no obligation to obey laws which violate the spirit and original intent of the US Constitution, to which all laws find their legitimacy.

"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural God-given unalienable or constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law." -- Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone 1942

In American legal tradition, an unconstitutional law is viewed as invalid, and is no law at all. As was affirmed in Marbury vs Madison 1803 “all laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void”

" The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose: since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177. Late 2d, Section 256.

vmtz

May 06, 2008, 22:36

I guess the illegals are allowed to make the same argument?

Fr. Vince

ftierson

May 06, 2008, 22:46

Originally posted by vmtz
I guess the illegals are allowed to make the same argument?

If they were citizens and not 'illegals,' of course...

Forrest

vmtz

May 06, 2008, 22:54

So now you are supporting people who pick and choose what laws they want to follow?

Fr. Vince

ftierson

May 07, 2008, 01:31

Originally posted by vmtz
So now you are supporting people who pick and choose what laws they want to follow?

Illogic to go with illegals...?

:)

Forrest

John Culver

May 07, 2008, 02:41

Jailguard

May 07, 2008, 10:02

I would not but then again im in a jail and not on the street. If I were put out to assist whith the confinscation of assult weapons i guess I would have a real hard time finding one because all the guns in my safe are sporting fire arms so i would have to err on the side of caution and not take someones personal property just because it is black that would profiling and we all know cops are not allower to profile any more.

John
Compliance with a violent person to get them to follow commands is diffrent than compliance with the flashing screen and do what big brother says. You are an ass bag go play with your you computer parts.

fastback65

May 07, 2008, 10:24

Originally posted by vmtz
So now you are supporting people who pick and choose what laws they want to follow?

Fr. Vince

I think we have a moral obligation, to NOT follow an unjust law.

Stranger

May 07, 2008, 11:18

Originally posted by vmtz

I guess the illegals are allowed to make the same argument?

So now you are supporting people who pick and choose what laws they want to follow?

Fr. Vince

Vince, which amendment in the Constitution specifies people have a right to immigrate into the country? Being able to make rules by which people can be naturalized doesn't make immigration a right.

I know what the second amendment states and if politicians were able to subvert it under the guise of laws I wouldn't hesitate to disobey the law. Again, where in the constitution does it state immigration is a right?

fastfreddy

May 07, 2008, 11:18

The Constitution requires the Federal Government to defend the borders.

The Constitution recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms and commands that right not be infringed.

tuck0411

May 07, 2008, 11:18

http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=974

John Culver

May 07, 2008, 12:29

Originally posted by fastfreddy
The Constitution requires the Federal Government to defend the borders.

The Constitution recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms and commands that right not be infringed.

However the US does NOT recognize the constitution as a valid document.

Hence the siezures of all guns in new orleans

gunplumber

May 07, 2008, 13:22

Originally posted by Heat
.I am curious, when the rubber DOES meet the road..where will they be on the issue?

They will dress up in their ninja gear, bust your door down, and shoot you if you protest.

No doubt about it - those "defecting in place" will be the small minority.

gunplumber

May 07, 2008, 14:05

There was some obscure book - the Turner Diaries? - that "solved" the gun confiscation issue by deputizing the dregs of society - criminals and thugs, to do the confiscating.

But really - with "I still have my gun", "Us versus them", a nice paycheck and retirement not too far away, how many LEs do you think will say "screw my job, screw my retirement, screw my family's health insurance, I'm going to stand on principle!. What we saw in New Orleans was no more than I expected. INcluding the cops doing the looting. It saddens me to say it, but when our President equivocates on what the meaning of "is" is, we cannot expect our society to stand on principle for ANYTHING. Honor is dead. Right and wrong are "culturally biased thoughts" and honesty is whatever a good lawyer pretends it is, before 12 dimwitted morons.

Unfortunately, I don't think the young brainwashed military personnel will be any different - and they are getting a lot of practice in gun confiscation right now.

John Culver

May 07, 2008, 14:07

Individually I am sure many cops would refuse to obey.

However cops are like gangs, and have the gang mentallity.

Their personal opinions will go out the window in favor of what the gang commands them to do.

Thats just how it works.

garandguy10

May 07, 2008, 19:11

Well , You can expect a blitzkrieg style of gun confiscation,the Fed.State and Local cops will have it down to a particular time and date to begin.They will have to try to get every weapon of all kinds out of the citizens hands within a few hours,before the citizens can disburse thier munitions and organize a proper legal court challenge.The LEO type's know that once they begin seizing property and weapons and arresting or killing those that do not obey their surrender orders in mass, They will have their hands full.Of course the military will be involved,but they are already heavily involved doing the same types of things in far away countries, and are stretched too thin to be everywhere at once. Citizens will begin to hate LEO types,much like the nazi's in Russia. I think that LEO types that think that disregarding the Bill of Rights will be a cake walk and a good career move may want to think about the consequences of their actions before they make their potential reality a sad and avoidable chapter in some future history book.
Tazers and pepper spray will be of little use to LEO types against a motivated and educated civilian population.

English Mike

May 07, 2008, 19:31

Anyone posting an opinion on this issue should remember that their real identity & home address are easily available to the government.
Some posts could be construed as advocating terrorism.

Remember 1984: The screen "sees" both ways.............:|

Stranger

May 07, 2008, 19:36

Originally posted by ENGLISH MIKE
Anyone posting an opinion on this issue should remember that their real identity & home address are easily available to the government.
Some posts could be construed as advocating terrorism.

Remember 1984: The screen "sees" both ways.............:|

Damn, I really shouldn't have made that immigration policy comment! :uhoh:

English Mike

May 07, 2008, 20:02

Originally posted by Stranger

Damn, I really shouldn't have made that immigration policy comment! :uhoh:

Telling the arrogant turds what you think of their crap doesn't worry them; advocating turning them into hamburger gets their attention.

Keep your own counsel, write rather than talk because walls really do have ears - witness the ongoing trial of the "transatlantic plane bombers" here in the UK.

garandguy10

May 07, 2008, 20:38

OK, I toned down my post a bit,I would not want anyone to think that I was "advocating" anything.I was only expressing a opinion based on the possible outcome of a purly hypothetical situation that is very unlikely to occur.........:angel:

AlaskanMBR

May 07, 2008, 21:01

Originally posted by gunplumber
There was some obscure book - the Turner Diaries? - that "solved" the gun confiscation issue by deputizing the dregs of society - criminals and thugs, to do the confiscating.

But really - with "I still have my gun", "Us versus them", a nice paycheck and retirement not too far away, how many LEs do you think will say "screw my job, screw my retirement, screw my family's health insurance, I'm going to stand on principle!. What we saw in New Orleans was no more than I expected. INcluding the cops doing the looting. It saddens me to say it, but when our President equivocates on what the meaning of "is" is, we cannot expect our society to stand on principle for ANYTHING. Honor is dead. Right and wrong are "culturally biased thoughts" and honesty is whatever a good lawyer pretends it is, before 12 dimwitted morons.

Unfortunately, I don't think the young brainwashed military personnel will be any different - and they are getting a lot of practice in gun confiscation right now.

What GP says makes so much sense it is scary...

Same with English Mike...

If confiscation is attempted, nobody could never forgive the guys in charge, or the ones carrying it out.

It would force major change.

I don't believe the slime weasels in Washington have the guts to even try it- they HATE change, you know.

:cry:

...

:sleep:

fastfreddy

May 07, 2008, 21:13

I really don't think there will be a concerted effort at door to door confiscation. It might be easy for Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer to fantasize about, BUT

the life expectancy for the men on the front line would soon become shorter than that of WWI aviators. A number of the "ninjas" would soon lose the stomach for going out to die for the cause of exerting Michael Bloomberg's will against honest peaceable Americans.

I'm not advocating it. I'm just callin' it like I see it. The action will be continued incremental tightening of the noose. Frogs in the "hottub" don't shoot back.

lngnmn

May 07, 2008, 21:43

They won't need to risk a confrontation with an armed citizen.
They'll show up when they know you're not home, (maybe even with a warrant) bust down the door, shoot the dogs and steal your guns. By the time you find out about it you will be unarmed/ out gunned and probably submit peacefully and not be charged with "possession of illegal firearms" if you help them with info on other people with unauthorized firearms!

ftierson

May 07, 2008, 21:43

Keep in mind that we don't live forever and nobody gets out of this life alive...

Just sayin'...

Forrest

Heat

May 07, 2008, 22:28

Originally posted by ENGLISH MIKE
Anyone posting an opinion on this issue should remember that their real identity & home address are easily available to the government.
Some posts could be construed as advocating terrorism.

Remember 1984: The screen "sees" both ways.............:|
1+1!
I am not advocating terrorism, Im just advocating returning to the true meaning and underpinnings of the Constitution--that said everyone take what our good English friend has said to heart--

John Culver

May 08, 2008, 15:04

Originally posted by Lewis Wetzel
Another tactic will be the making of decent men into criminals with a cascade of related 'crimes' that will read like a laundry list of 'offenses'...

That's a favorite with FedGOD and State authorities now: 'Conspiracy to commit (fill in the blank), interstate communications violations (if you used a cellphone), ASSET FORFEITURE of EVERYTHING your family has...

In my own opinion (and some others) the 'bargaining down' to a guilty plea (which is how over 95% of felony cases end out....is nothing BUT EXTORTION, PURE AND SIMPLE....but since it usually happens to 'bad people', everybody goes along with it..

Maybe someday some of you will (and I am hopeful) understand the TRUTH of my sigline......Everything the Soviets and the Nazis (and the present day Mexican government, EU nations--who put people on trial for 'THOUGHT CRIMES"....google 'Bridget Bardot" and Muslims) has been LEGAL...in the sense that , well, HELL, if the GOVERNMENT says it's legal, then it MUST be.....Americans are more like Germans than the English....always bowing to 'authoritah'....

Dont forget the new one:
Crime by Proxy

You inspired someone else to do it, but you get the charge.

cotter

May 08, 2008, 21:44

The 2E was written to protect us from the government overstepping it's bound. To defend life, LIBERTY and the persuit of happiness. Nothing more need be said there.
How many illegal aliens do we have in the US? How many drug dealers do we have in the US? We have been fighting both of these 'wars' for how long and have done nothing but loose gound. We can not get rid of illegals fast enough and each drug dealer caught inspires 2 more to take their place. Now how many firearms do we have in the US? How many have been 'lost' to tracing? We currently have no system of tracing ammunition, how are they going to find all that? Our government is totally inept (Katrina) and could not do this in a quick enough manner to get away with it, see 2E above, it will be defended by marksmen, shooters and hunters (and mall ninjas). Many cops out there shoot only when they have to for the job, qualify and clean the gun until qualification comes up again so I see no particular attachment to the 2E coming into play for them, POWER trip time.
Yes the anti's will push their agenda, GOA and NRA will push theirs but as I have said before neither really wants to 'win'. If one side 'wins' then both sides will be out of a job and will loose millions of dollars that members of both sides contribute in their personnal crusades. Do you think the CURE for cancer will ever be found? HA!
Better to die a free man than live as a subject!
Hijack! Take a look at the total NICS checks and see what this election has done! http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nics_checks_total.pdf 2007 was about 200,000 a month OVER the average and 2008 has been slightly (50,000)higher than that! Keep buying them!
Chad

19k40ret

May 08, 2008, 22:45

in the army we were instructed in the rules of war and it was drilled into our heads that if given an order was given that violated those rules, it was your duty to disobey it.
the excuse that, "I was only following orders", went out with the nuremberg trials.
likewise if a LEO acts to enforce a law which is in clear in violation of the constituion, then the LEO commits a crimminal act as well as violating his oath to uphold the constitution.

Fr vince, thinks that a citizen refusing to obey an unconstitutional law, is taking the law into our own hands, forgetting that we are the sovereigns of this nation, not the government, and when the government stops serving the people and seeks to become our master, we have every right to put it in its place. READ THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, its not just words.

It is said that one who repeats the words of the founders, is considered a dangerous man, if men have died and suffered, and lost home and family to give us this nation, then damn it, we had better be willing to do the same, or else find a hole and crawl into it.

fastback65

May 09, 2008, 17:18

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

“I say the Earth belongs to each generation. No generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence.”

"Sustainability is the only way to behave as individuals, communities, economies, and as humanity."

"it is our "duty, to throw off" an unsatisfactory government."

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

"What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

"We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed."

"To preserve the freedom of the human mind then and freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will, and speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement."

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves"

Thomas Jefferson

'nuf said

Azrial

May 09, 2008, 17:48

Originally posted by gunplumber
They will dress up in their ninja gear, bust your door down, and shoot you if you protest.

No doubt about it - those "defecting in place" will be the small minority.
On the other hand our courageous gunsmiths will, as a man, take their FFL Bound Books and all customer information with them to their graves. They will refuse to turn over any customer records to the the BATF, choosing to go out in a blaze of suicidal glory!

Just like their hero, Bill Ruger, just like they do every day! :rolleyes:

I have never been sworn to obey unlawful orders. The Constitution is the hinge-pin of all law in the US. It is not a "living document," it is a blueprint.

John Culver

May 09, 2008, 19:55

Originally posted by 19k40ret
...
likewise if a LEO acts to enforce a law which is in clear in violation of the constituion, then the LEO commits a crimminal act as well as violating his oath to uphold the constitution....

However this is meaningless, again, hundred of LEO's violated the constitution in New Orleans, illegal searches, siezure, denial of 2nd ammendment rights, and many more.

They were never prosecuted, most were promoted.

Violating the constitution is meaningless now, as the constitution is merely a piece of paper these days, with unfortunately very very little meaning or power.

It is merely an 'ideal' subject to 'resonable' regulation.

Until THAT changes we cannot say "this or that wont happen as its unconstitutional'

deerollman

May 09, 2008, 20:19

Originally posted by ftierson
And why would they want to grandfather anything?
Forrest

a congressional study was commisioned a ways back, late nineties i think, which concluded that if even one percent of one pecent of gun owners violently resisted, total deaths would be way in the five figures, and that the public wouldnt stand for it.

of course, if theyre unarmed...

and speaking of violating constitutional rights, see english mikes first post.

right there is part of the problem: now we have this complete BS patriot act , and here we are, those best prepared to defend against tyranny, but HOLD YOURE TOUNGUE, ITS THE LAW NOW! cant be talking about the gov violating our rights! its the law!

**** that.

keep an eye on your local news, take notice if you see a rash of specious arrest.

Azrial

May 09, 2008, 21:39

Originally posted by John Culver
However this is meaningless, again, hundred of LEO's violated the constitution in New Orleans, illegal searches, siezure, denial of 2nd ammendment rights, and many more.

They were never prosecuted, most were promoted....
Who was promoted John? How do you know this? You don't know what you are talking about.

I too think that this was a travesty! But I fail to see what good it will do to make up lies about it. Most in the LE community have roundly condemned the actions of those few that participated in that illegal action.

New Orleans have always been a city ripe with corruption. I would like to remind you that the city was so outraged by this behavior that they could not wait to reelect that idiot, Ray Nagin. I find it difficult to find sympathy for any city that anxious to embrace the man that threw out the Bill of Rights in a mindless panic.

Let us not forget that the military was involved in this, or course that is in poor taste to admit, but it is the truth. The city under never under Martial law.

But, perhaps a little honesty would be more helpful then lies.

John Culver

May 09, 2008, 22:40

Originally posted by Azrial

Who was promoted John? How do you know this? You don't know what you are talking about.

I too think that this was a travesty! But I fail to see what good it will do to make up lies about it. Most in the LE community have roundly condemned the actions of those few that participated in that illegal action.

New Orleans have always been a city ripe with corruption. I would like to remind you that the city was so outraged by this behavior that they could not wait to reelect that idiot, Ray Nagin. I find it difficult to find sympathy for any city that anxious to embrace the man that threw out the Bill of Rights in a mindless panic.

Let us not forget that the military was involved in this, or course that is in poor taste to admit, but it is the truth. The city under never under Martial law.

But, perhaps a little honesty would be more helpful then lies.

Then tell me, who was fired? who was prosecuted for this? Who is sitting in federal jail?

As far as I know, not a single officer was punished.

And if they are not punished, then the normal promotion schedule takes place.

Most in the LE community have condemned it? yah just like the UN condemns things. Too me its meaningless without actions. Did the LE community press for those officers to be prosecuted? of course not.

Azrial

May 09, 2008, 23:17

Originally posted by John Culver
Then tell me, who was fired? who was prosecuted for this? Who is sitting in federal jail?

As far as I know, not a single officer was punished.....
I don't know either, I really doubt that any agency would publicly admit that as it would leave them open to suit, but it is ridiculous to claim that anyone was promoted for participating in this.

Instead, in a classic case of misdirection, everyone screams for the blood of cops in general as retribution for the actions of the these few idiots that violated their oath of office all the while ignoring the people that ordered it and all parties that participated!

The question is really do you just have an act to grind, or are you really interested in preventing this act from happening to again?

John Culver

May 10, 2008, 01:05

Originally posted by Azrial

I don't know either, I really doubt that any agency would publicly admit that as it would leave them open to suit, but it is ridiculous to claim that anyone was promoted for participating in this.

Instead, in a classic case of misdirection, everyone screams for the blood of cops in general as retribution for the actions of the these few idiots that violated their oath of office all the while ignoring the people that ordered it and all parties that participated!

The question is really do you just have an act to grind, or are you really interested in preventing this act from happening to again?

We havent ignored those who ordered it, the police chief of new orleans (and nagin) is under investigation, but do we see any LEOs supporting that?
I have financially supported it through the SAF and NRA.

By the way I have read several local LEO dept oaths and they dont even bother to mention the constitution, only to uphold the law, and serve justice.

LEOs should be screaming for the blood of the idiots that did this, then we would have ALOT less peolpe upset at LEO's in general.

Azrial

May 10, 2008, 09:49

Originally posted by John Culver
We havent ignored those who ordered it, the police chief of new orleans (and nagin) is under investigation, but do we see any LEOs supporting that?
What am I, or for that matter all the LEO members of this board and countless others. I have honestly never met one that supported it. I have met some that were indifferent, much as the general population.

This indifference is frankly why I suspect that we will never see anything come of these "investigations." That and the misdirection of getting people rilled up at the police. Have you ever heard anyone bitching that "Mayor Nagin illegally confiscated firearms during Katrina?" No, "the COPS did it, THEY want all our guns!" BS!
Originally posted by John Culver
I have financially supported it through the SAF and NRA.
Double life member of the NRA myself. Also LEAA, and recently JPFO.

My perspective is that people should point that righteous indignation at the source of the problem. Police officers as a group will never disappear from this country, but if this was done correctly Mayor Ray Nagin, ex-Superintendent Eddie Compass and former Police Chief Warren Riley just might.

dakdak

May 10, 2008, 10:20

Azrial is right.

The Mayors and Governors like Nagin and so forth lead the charge against guns in the hands of law-abiding citiizens.

If Nagin had not told the Chief in New Orleans to take those actions it would not have been done unilaterally.

That is not to say there are no poiltical chiefs of Police and in the State Police. But, they do reflect the views of the political administrations.

StarPD

May 10, 2008, 11:18

Chief of police in NO supported Nagin's gun confiscations.
Rank and file officers obeyed the illegal orders and seized guns.
The LEOs and troops brought in also seized guns in direct and open contravention of the 2nd Amendment. The old lady who was knocked down and had her little .32 seized was victimized and abused by California CHP officers imported to NO during the aftermath, so it wasn't just a few corrupt NO police.

Everyone here knows I appreciate and support LEOs in general, and especially our own members who are cops. Nevertheless, law enforcement gave itself a bloody nose after Katrina, and besmirched the honor of police officers everywhere. I was disappointed and dismayed beyond words to see sworn officers violate the Constitution with impunity and cast a pall on the image and dignity of officers across the land. Katrina will forever be a black spot on law enforcement in America.

Jailguard

May 10, 2008, 11:47

I was also severly disappointed in what happened in NO the guys from my Dept were sent to Mississippi to assit there. So we were not involved with NO but all the Deps i talked to said that they would not have particapated in the confiscation. Just after katrina Florida passed a law that would prevent that kind of stuff from happening here and i think that is a good thing.

Would I have resisted if I were living there and they came after my guns? I would like to think I would have but who knows what you would do if you children were in the line of fire of these types.

When it come down to armed resistance you have to decide weather it is time to fight right then or to bide your time and formulate a plan. The main thing to consider is can you get your family to safty and out of the line of fire.

ftierson

May 10, 2008, 12:12

Originally posted by Jailguard
When it come down to armed resistance you have to decide weather it is time to fight right then or to bide your time and formulate a plan. The main thing to consider is can you get your family to safty and out of the line of fire.

While this is true to a point, just keep in mind that biding your time and formulating a plan can lead to standing in lines to board cattle cars...

After all, as Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman point out so well in The State vs The People: The Rise of the American Police State, when only the police have guns, it's called a police state...

And, while agreeing with George and not trying to cast aspersions on many of our fine members who are also LEOs, anyone who doesn't think that most will follow orders no matter how unconstitutional, or even unethical, the orders are needs only to read Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland and take the appropriate lesson from history.

Forrest

AndyC

May 10, 2008, 12:38

Just to give a foreigner's perspective, we were instructed that we were obliged to disobey an illegal order, should one be given, in the SADF. Obviously, we would have been required to back up our reasons for such a refusal during a summary trial or even a court-martial.

For most people, it's easier not to strain the brain and just go along with things.

ftierson

May 10, 2008, 12:52

Originally posted by AndyC
Just to give a foreigner's perspective, we were instructed that we were obliged to disobey an illegal order, should one be given, in the SADF. Obviously, we would have been required to back up our reasons for such a refusal during a summary trial or even a court-martial.

For most people, it's easier not to strain the brain and just go along with things.

Also, keep in mind that many of the confiscation orders that we're talking about here could well be legal, even if unconstitutional...

Yet another wrinkle to consider when attempting to predict the behavior of individual LEOs...

Forrest

Azrial

May 10, 2008, 13:38

Originally posted by ftierson
....Also, keep in mind that many of the confiscation orders that we're talking about here could well be legal, even if unconstitutional...
If it is unconstitutional, it can not be legal.

ftierson

May 10, 2008, 14:03

Originally posted by Azrial
If it is unconstitutional, it can not be legal.

True...

But, semantics...

The unconstitutionality of any law is only determined over time...

And only if you believe the SCOTUS determination compared to a common understanding of the intent of the original framers of the constitution.

A lot of people can die between the enactment of a law and then...

Forrest

John Culver

May 10, 2008, 14:37

Originally posted by Azrial

......

This indifference is frankly why I suspect that we will never see anything come of these "investigations." That and the misdirection of getting people rilled up at the police. Have you ever heard anyone bitching that "Mayor Nagin illegally confiscated firearms during Katrina?" No, "the COPS did it, THEY want all our guns!" BS!

....

Mayor Nagin did not confiscate them, he ordered it of course, but the rank and file are who comitted the crime. THEY made the choice to throw the constitution into the garbage. They could have said , no Mr Nagin, I refuse, but they didnt, they went along with it. So when people say "the COPS did it" they are 100% right.

Heat

May 10, 2008, 18:33

Most cops are idiots..not all, but most..that comes from knowing, talking to and listening to alot of them..most are poor students with below average intelligence and broken down has-been jocks,they dont give a shit about your rights, period..when push comes to shove and the rubber hits the highway they will jack your guns and anything else they want and then gladly throw your ass in a cattle car to the FEMA re-location camp..or just shoot your ass..trust at your own peril

Azrial

May 10, 2008, 19:48

Originally posted by John Culver
Mayor Nagin did not confiscate them, he ordered it of course, but the rank and file are who comitted the crime. THEY made the choice to throw the constitution into the garbage. They could have said , no Mr Nagin, I refuse, but they didnt, they went along with it. So when people say "the COPS did it" they are 100% right.
John were you there?

Not all the COPS there did it and not all the MILITARY there did it either. A lot of them were too damn busy swimming in shit trying to help someone.

They are not "100% right" and neither are you.

I agree with StarPD, to a point.

It was a black day for Law Enforcement for taking part in this illegal seizure.

It was also a black day for the US Military for doing so as well and in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

It was a black day for the elected politicians when they ordered this violation of the Bill of Rights which they too are sworn to upheld.

And it was sure as Hell a black day for the idiot citizens of that town that do not share a 10% of the outrage that neither you or I do. Who put that moron Nagin back in office.

But, you keep grinding that ax!

longhair51

May 10, 2008, 21:38

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Heat
[B]Most cops are idiots..not all, but most..that comes from knowing, talking to and listening to alot of them..most are poor students with below average intelligence and broken down has-been jocks.....

Many, but not all cops, have or are working on advanced degrees. Have you ever been through the selection process to get into a police academy? I have, and I can tell you that getting a "top secret" clearance in the military was easier.

Going through the academy will usually weed out most of the other undesirables. The problem, in my opinion, is that even after riding with your FTO and passing the probation period, some are not really capable of dealing with the s#it that the street hands you every day. It is very hard to step in it all of the time and come out smelling like a rose. Sometimes it will make a person hostile, or less tolerant than they should be. Personally I see this in a number of the younger officers that don't have a lot of time on the street.

As to the rest of your post we agree somewhat. I believe the police should do a better job of policing themselves.

Don

John Culver

May 11, 2008, 02:29

Originally posted by Azrial

John were you there?

Not all the COPS there did it and not all the MILITARY there did it either. A lot of them were too damn busy swimming in shit trying to help someone.

They are not "100% right" and neither are you.

I agree with StarPD, to a point.

It was a black day for Law Enforcement for taking part in this illegal seizure.

It was also a black day for the US Military for doing so as well and in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

It was a black day for the elected politicians when they ordered this violation of the Bill of Rights which they too are sworn to upheld.

And it was sure as Hell a black day for the idiot citizens of that town that do not share a 10% of the outrage that neither you or I do. Who put that moron Nagin back in office.

But, you keep grinding that ax!

No not ALL did it, (and I didnt say they did, plenty were actually doing there jobs)

And a black day for the city that re-elected Nagin? Very true (and so damned ironic in several ways :) )

I keep grinding the ax because 'letting it go' is certainly not he right answer, there has been way too much of that already "oh lets just forget it happened"
If we forget, we set ourselves up for it to happen again.

History WILL repeat itself. Its up to us to ensure the outcome changes.

It's been almost 3 years, and still those guns have not been returned.
Mainly because not enough people are screaming foul.

longhair51: I think most cops start off with the right intentions, but it doesnt seem to take long for the stress of work, and the good ol boy system to corrupt them.

Azrial

May 11, 2008, 12:24

Originally posted by John Culver
No not ALL did it, (and I didnt say they did, plenty were actually doing there jobs)

And a black day for the city that re-elected Nagin? Very true (and so damned ironic in several ways :) )

I keep grinding the ax because 'letting it go' is certainly not he right answer, there has been way too much of that already "oh lets just forget it happened"
If we forget, we set ourselves up for it to happen again.

History WILL repeat itself. Its up to us to ensure the outcome changes.

It's been almost 3 years, and still those guns have not been returned.
Mainly because not enough people are screaming foul.
You know I started not to respond, as I agreed with most of what you said.

My whole point is that this was the failure of a system and to hold any one part of it as solely accountable is to ignore the other broken parts, insuring future failure.....

Thunderbred

May 11, 2008, 12:56

Our elected officials and law enforcement can't win the war on drugs and is losing ground fighting gangs coming into this country. I believe these two groups to be a small minority of the population even though they're strongly tied together.

Look at the riots in LA in the early 90s, a people got angry and rose up because they believed they had good cause. At the same time law enforcement was virtually powerless until the crowds cooled.

The relevence of these two points is, those of us that believe in the 2nd, are a diverse group of people across these United States. There are how many million gun owners? First point , there will be many hold outs that will go underground though maybe not organized at first. The time and resources to find us will be overwelming.
The organizing catalist for all will come, if and when the cofiscations become conflicts that take blood, we will become angry. We will be an angry Nation, and we've been there before. There are enough that would rise across the country that the Government will still be the people.

We use the First till it no longer affords us the rest of our God Givens, during this time, us hold outs do and are already positioning ourselves in benign legal manners as to be able to do as needed when the time comes. Threads such as this one are everywhere, are a cautious search for "a who has my back", and confirm that those elected by the People will at times, need to be watchdogged by the People. Threads like this one also provide us an idea of the numbers we have, and that think and believe as we do. Our Second may be written just like our first is, but I don't believe a piece of parchment gives me my rights, my actions do. Our forefathers didn't give us our rights, they exercised thiers and in doing so gave us the guidelines we need to follow.

New Orleans wasn't a good example as the storm first cause confusion and scattered any thoughts of organization by the People. Law enforcement had the advantage of organization over the population at that time and it is a wake up call for us all. What we should really have and need are National and Local emergency combined with Second Amendment forums that give us the roots to coordinate any survival organization we may need when the time calls.

Right now we should fear the indoctrination of our children in the schools into socialistic beliefs, which are a greater threat to the freedoms of this Nation. Confication now would still bring rebellion, but in one or two generations, law enforcements mindset will be different, instead of enforcing laws that protect the People they may enforce control. Brainwash will make them (People and LEOs) more tollerant of what will then be Government.

Jeff

ftierson

May 11, 2008, 13:25

Originally posted by Azrial
My whole point is that this was the failure of a system and to hold any one part of it as solely accountable is to ignore the other broken parts, insuring future failure.....

Ain't that the truth...

But, since LEOs are where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, they'll be the most visible expression of the failure of the system. And, if enough LEOs are willing to enforce illegal (in your definition of the word) laws, the failed system will be proped up enough to continue...

Forrest

John Culver

May 11, 2008, 13:32

Originally posted by Azrial

You know I started not to respond, as I agreed with most of what you said.

My whole point is that this was the failure of a system and to hold any one part of it as solely accountable is to ignore the other broken parts, insuring future failure.....

I cant argue with that. ALL parties need prosecuted for it.

sf46

May 11, 2008, 16:31

Originally posted by Heat
If we get one of the two motherfkers from the left as President and either one pushes thru a ban on say, handguns or MBR's--just curious, how many of the LEO's that frequent the Boards here are going to 'pitch in' and start the collection process of those firearms...I am curious, when the rubber DOES meet the road..where will they be on the issue?

We're sworn to uphold the Constitution. I don't enforce unconstitutional laws. When the ATF came to speak about the '94 ban and about needing our help in the future when the next phase (gun confiscation) became law, everyone walked out of the meeting saying that we would not enforce that kind of unconstitutional crap and would not assist them when they are getting shot up while trying to enforce such unconstitutional foolsihness.

garandguy10

May 11, 2008, 17:06

Originally posted by sf46

We're sworn to uphold the Constitution. I don't enforce unconstitutional laws. When the ATF came to speak about the '94 ban and about needing our help in the future when the next phase (gun confiscation) became law, everyone walked out of the meeting saying that we would not enforce that kind of unconstitutional crap and would not assist them when they are getting shot up while trying to enforce such unconstitutional foolsihness.

Nice words,But that was then.How many of those cops are still in uniform?I would think that most of those officers have retired and been replaced by the MTV/RAPPER/VH1 generation of cops that really do not have a grasp on the 2nd amendment and civil rights. Katrina was a perfect example of what we can expect from LEO's in the future.

cotter

May 11, 2008, 18:28

Originally posted by Thunderbred
New Orleans wasn't a good example as the storm first cause confusion and scattered any thoughts of organization by the People. Law enforcement had the advantage of organization over the population at that time and it is a wake up call for us all. What we should really have and need are National and Local emergency combined with Second Amendment forums that give us the roots to coordinate any survival organization we may need when the time calls.

I disagree. Look at NO and the responce that we saw on TV. It was not a what can I do for my situation, what can I do for my country, it was 'somebody gonna haf to pay fo all dis' and what can you do for me. the government has made a whole class of ignorants, it is not a black or white thing it is a leach on society thing. The government GIVES them everything including the thoughts in their brains, and we the workers are paying for it to happen. The lame will always lay over in the face of advercity. How much complaining do we hear out of the midwest when the Mississippi floods, or tornados blow thru and lay waste to whole cities in the tornado belt. Not near as much because there are more workers there and less leachers, they do something about it now, not when help arrives. Someone who has earned their place in life WILL defend it, when it cost you nothing you could care less.

Right now we should fear the indoctrination of our children in the schools into socialistic beliefs, which are a greater threat to the freedoms of this Nation. Confication now would still bring rebellion, but in one or two generations, law enforcements mindset will be different, instead of enforcing laws that protect the People they may enforce control. Brainwash will make them (People and LEOs) more tollerant of what will then be Government.

Jeff
Yup, they have been doing it for generations though, like the dems buy their votes through welfare and every other govt program to help the 'disenfranchised' aka the lazy. The rep's on on to it now, just they buy off less votes per dollar.
Chad

deerollman

May 11, 2008, 22:15

Originally posted by sf46

We're sworn to uphold the Constitution. I don't enforce unconstitutional laws. When the ATF came to speak about the '94 ban and about needing our help in the future when the next phase (gun confiscation) became law, everyone walked out of the meeting saying that we would not enforce that kind of unconstitutional crap and would not assist them when they are getting shot up while trying to enforce such unconstitutional foolsihness.

i am honestly not trying to start shit here, but:

have you ever participated in a DUI road block? ever helped seize the property of a drug dealer, the car of a DUI suspect? there are so many unconstitutional laws out there that people never think twice about.

Heat

May 11, 2008, 22:51

Originally posted by deerollman

i am honestly not trying to start shit here, but:

have you ever participated in a DUI road block? ever helped seize the property of a drug dealer, the car of a DUI suspect? there are so many unconstitutional laws out there that people never think twice about.
Yep, alot of cops dont even care..they just go thru the motions..our fed gov and its myriad of agencies make the Nazi's look like amateurs..just spoke to a guy that I sold something to and he gave me the low-down on how a mutual friend was railroaded by ATF a few yrs ago over technicalities..they thru the book at the guy and ruined his life, almost bankrupted him..mainly went after him because of his outspoken politics that didnt jive with big daddy gov..I have read of many that have been throttled by ATF, IRS, EPA..you name it..they are unholy, immoral and downright evil..and local cops end up being an extension of that many times...funding plays a large part from what I understand..dont cooperate and the fed funding gets yanked...play along and do the feds dirty work and the money keeps flowing, our money..thru them to the locals..to screw us..nice setup, eh?

Azrial

May 12, 2008, 12:35

Meanwhile over HERE (http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=232382) Moutainman is waxing euphorically about how great the cops are!

Someone put a stop to it!

John Culver

May 12, 2008, 21:28

Originally posted by Azrial
Meanwhile over HERE (http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=232382) Moutainman is waxing euphorically about how great the cops are!

Someone put a stop to it!

err sorta, more like administrators

Bangz

May 13, 2008, 11:40

It is simply about what you are willing to tolerate, or not. In times of crisis, I would imagine that my tolerance level would be be significantly reduced. I would prepare accordingly and think preemptively and asymetrically. You can prepare physically and mentally for the event, but it's hard to predict exactly how things will go. The delivery of the message often affects the response and inducing fear doesn't always achieve submission. I would recommend that law enforcement not dress for war.

On the road to Mexico City, many, but not all, are Federales during the day and Banditos at night. Every day and night, they all look the same, so situational awareness is key, as is the delivery of the message. It just takes one bad word to give everybody pause and cause the situation to immediately go south.

John Culver

May 13, 2008, 21:05

more fine officers committing atrocities of the constitution.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/10755.html

It seems we need to clone Azrial and send him there. :)

sf46

May 13, 2008, 21:38

19k40ret

May 13, 2008, 23:17

with regards to your statement

You got me there, bubba, because I don't see (given the proper procedures) where seizing a drug dealers goods and property used in the trade is unconstitutional. The same goes for DWI checkpoints, although I find that they are highly ineffective, with a average of only 3 drunks being taken off the road for each checkpoint run.

In the 5th Amendment "nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process" in other words, until you have had your day in court.

many seizures are done without the person even being charged with a crime, after all if you carry a grand or two must be because your a drug dealer and since the car you were riding in was transporting the cash, we'll just take it to.

sf46

May 14, 2008, 07:00

Originally posted by 19k40ret
with regards to your statement

You got me there, bubba, because I don't see (given the proper procedures) where seizing a drug dealers goods and property used in the trade is unconstitutional. The same goes for DWI checkpoints, although I find that they are highly ineffective, with a average of only 3 drunks being taken off the road for each checkpoint run.

In the 5th Amendment "nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process" in other words, until you have had your day in court.

many seizures are done without the person even being charged with a crime, after all if you carry a grand or two must be because your a drug dealer and since the car you were riding in was transporting the cash, we'll just take it to.

I think you might consider that property seized as evidence falls within due process, as well as property seized with a warrant.

Would you have a drug dealer drive off with his load of Mary Jane UNTIL his day in court?:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Azrial

May 14, 2008, 10:25

Originally posted by sf46
I think you might consider that property seized as evidence falls within due process, as well as property seized with a warrant.

Would you have a drug dealer drive off with his load of Mary Jane UNTIL his day in court?:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And there in lies one of the real problems. It is very difficult to arrest anyone, ever, for anything that does not claim that you have somehow violated his rights, will sue you, call your boss and have your damn job!

People routinely demand "rights" that simply do not exist.

The Founding Fathers were not idiots, they had no intent to create a Criminal Utopia where there was no fair way to enforce the law and law breakers would be protected from reasonable attempts to bring them to justice.

Originally posted by John Culver
more fine officers committing atrocities of the constitution.......
It seems we need to clone Azrial and send him there. :)

Thanks John! But honestly there are plenty of officers with respect for the Constitution out there without subjecting the world to a plurality of my ugly face!

deerollman

May 14, 2008, 16:38

seizing property is more complicated, so ill stick with the easier one:

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.

A driver, going down the road, can be stopped and papers checked without any suspicion of wrongdoing, much less a warrant. Tell me how this is reasonable search.

Azrial

May 14, 2008, 17:38

Originally posted by deerollman
seizing property is more complicated, so ill stick with the easier one:

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.

A driver, going down the road, can be stopped and papers checked without any suspicion of wrongdoing, much less a warrant. Tell me how this is reasonable search.

Driving is not a "right" guaranteed by the Constitution.
Driving requires a license by virtue of state law.
Being stopped to verify the possession of valid drivers license is reasonable.
Getting a warrant to make a simple traffic stop in real time would be impossible,
therefore unreasonable.

If the only reason an officer stopped someone was to verify the possession of a valid drivers license, they need to let them be on there way quickly, absent some obvious and valid legal reason to prolong the stop.

Heat

May 14, 2008, 19:25

Originally posted by Azrial

Driving is not a "right" guaranteed by the Constitution.
Driving requires a license by virtue of state law.
Being stopped to verify the possession of valid drivers license is reasonable.
Getting a warrant to make a simple traffic stop in real time would be impossible,
therefore unreasonable.

If the only reason an officer stopped someone was to verify the possession of a valid drivers license, they need to let them be on there way quickly, absent some obvious and valid legal reason to prolong the stop.
I dont know if I agree with the view that driving is a privledge..I believe that if we are denied a license the gov at whatever level is denying us the ability to travel, which if Im not mistaken is a right
Looks to me like the gov 'assumes' they have the right to regulate an awful lot of activities and I, being the free wheeling guy I am dont cotton to that..

Azrial

May 14, 2008, 19:43

Originally posted by Heat
I dont know if I agree with the view that driving is a privledge..I believe that if we are denied a license the gov at whatever level is denying us the ability to travel, which if Im not mistaken is a right
Looks to me like the gov 'assumes' they have the right to regulate an awful lot of activities and I, being the free wheeling guy I am dont cotton to that..
I don't think it matters what you "cotton" to.

I have not heard any public outcries against the near one hundred year practice of requiring a drivers license. As a matter of fact drivers licensees were brought about in the early 1900's because the public demanded some regulation of drivers to help curb automotive related deaths.

I guess no one checked with you? Well too bad, we have never made laws in this country that required that we all agree, nor do I know of any country on Earth that does.

Sorry! :sad:

deerollman

May 14, 2008, 19:44

you have a right to travel, but not by driving a car. he (or she) is right about that.

however, to stop and check someone for a license when there is absolutely no reason to believe they dont have one is clearly unreasonable to me. further, the stops are "DUI" checks, not "LICENSE" checks. you are stopped to check, with no reason whatsoever to suspect otherwise, that you are sober. again, i dont see how anyone can call that reasonable.

by such reasoning, police can stop anyone, at anytime, if it crosses their mind that you are might be a jaywalker, or a child molester, or that there is cocaine residue on one of your dollar bills (newsflash: there probably is).

how exactly is that a "reasonable" argument to stop someone?

i 'think' there is a FF member who is guilty of sexual assault. if i could somehow get that person's home address and called the cops, they would laugh me off the phone:|

Heat

May 15, 2008, 01:57

Originally posted by Azrial

I don't think it matters what you "cotton" to.

I have not heard any public outcries against the near one hundred year practice of requiring a drivers license. As a matter of fact drivers licensees were brought about in the early 1900's because the public demanded some regulation of drivers to help curb automotive related deaths.

I guess no one checked with you? Well too bad, we have never made laws in this country that required that we all agree, nor do I know of any country on Earth that does.

Sorry! :sad:
Calm down dude, just stating my humble opinion..no need to flame:eek:
I know this, I am a better driver NOT because I was issued a license but because I am responsible and alert..if I left my drivers license at home I would drive the same regardless..to me a drivers license is just another form of I.D., like my SSN that someone is always clamoring for

Azrial

May 15, 2008, 08:19

Originally posted by Heat
Calm down dude, just stating my humble opinion..no need to flame:eek:
I know this, I am a better driver NOT because I was issued a license but because I am responsible and alert..if I left my drivers license at home I would drive the same regardless..to me a drivers license is just another form of I.D., like my SSN that someone is always clamoring for
Calm down? Don't worry about me, I am as happy as Hillary with the keys to the Federal Reserve in my pocket! I reread my post and I don't see any flames.

No, your post that I was responding to was so over the top that I assumed that you must be joking! We were discussing the law and you started posting those opinions that you thought that driving was a right guaranteed by the Constitution and for some odd reason government "assumed" they had the right to regulate and pass law without your personal approval. Well you just cracked me up! :rofl:

Are you telling that this is what you really think? :eek:

You must remember, I am just a dumb cop, I must have missed the fine point to your post.

Muggzy

May 15, 2008, 09:25

I have not read all the other post. I am responding to Azrial's post.

I know the State tells me it is a "privilege" of the State to be able to drive.

But I disagree.....I think it is a right guaranteed........life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Does this make sense? I think not. State is still telling me it is a privilege.

:cry:

sometimes I wish i had gone to Law School instead of being a Playboy Photographer:rofl:

keiser

May 15, 2008, 13:47

Originally posted by Muggzy
I have not read all the other post. I am responding to Azrial's post.

I know the State tells me it is a "privilege" of the State to be able to drive.

But I disagree.....I think it is a right guaranteed........life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Does this make sense? I think not. State is still telling me it is a privilege.

It has always been a right to travel freely. The cops have bought into this thought that people have no right to travel freely and they should know all you do and where you are going. Really, why do we need driver's licenses or license plates? Strictly for control purposes. The laws still apply to you whether you have a driver's license, plates or not. What it all comes down to is that police today are armed tax collectors for the state. They want money and that is that. When you go to traffic court you are guilty when you walk in the door and you will walk out with less money no matter what the outcome.

It's all about the money. Cops act like they are doing the job to help society, but in the end, if they are truthful, they are only bringing in money for the dregs running the government.

XHardrock

May 15, 2008, 15:00

If the powers that be considered it right they would lose control, privileges are much easier to regulate.

Heat

May 15, 2008, 17:35

Azrial:
"You must remember, I am just a dumb cop, I must have missed the fine point to your post."
I'll try to remember that in the future!
Sorry, I dont think that the govt is in the business to dole out 'privledges' to people ..like I said, my having a license has no bearing on my ability to drive safely, or even to have insurance for a possible accident, I would have insurance regardless..plenty of 'licensed' drivers kill themselves and others everyday driving poorly..our govt, which you are an employee of is just a machine for generating income thru licenses, taxes, fines and fees.

vmtz

May 15, 2008, 17:57

Another example of Heat not wanting to have rules on himself, but I bet he has not problem with imposing rules on others.

Fr. Vince

1911guy

May 15, 2008, 18:09

I don't know about the driving thing but I will bet a lot that if gun confiscation is passed the police will take part. There may be some rural guys locally who won't participate but they live in the area so I'm not sure they want to bust in a neighbors door. They might come home from work to find family and home sorta distressed.
I would not be surprised to see imports do the job or have it outsourced to Blackwater or =.

John Culver

May 15, 2008, 18:16

ahh insurance, another TAX.

Its required by LAW it should be tax deductible.

deerollman

May 15, 2008, 18:50

i am still hoping to get a reply to my last post....

but back on topic, a good aspect to consider is: since police tend to own weapons other than those issued to them, would police have to turn in their guns as well? that would throw a big wrench in things. i imagine if it ever comes to this, they would be exempt, as they are (as i understand it) "always on duty".

sf46

May 15, 2008, 19:59

Originally posted by 1911guy
I don't know about the driving thing but I will bet a lot that if gun confiscation is passed the police will take part. There may be some rural guys locally who won't participate but they live in the area so I'm not sure they want to bust in a neighbors door. They might come home from work to find family and home sorta distressed.
I would not be surprised to see imports do the job or have it outsourced to Blackwater or =.

Let me restate what's already been stated:

We're sworn to uphold the Constitution. I don't enforce unconstitutional laws. When the ATF came to speak about the '94 ban and about needing our help in the future when the next phase (gun confiscation) became law, everyone walked out of the meeting saying that we would not enforce that kind of unconstitutional crap and would not assist them when they are getting shot up while trying to enforce such unconstitutional foolishness.

Russ

May 15, 2008, 20:11

Yeah, well .... just when I think there is hope for Az -- and us 'civilians'....he relapses!!

The most basic, and genuine view of the fourth amendment is that the government and its agents do NOT have the right to insert themsleves into the life of a private citizen absent some evidence that a crime has been committed and that a particular citizen is suspected of involvement. I don't know how anyone can argue that one.

I've been stopped and ticketed for an expired vehicle registration, and I think that was perfectly ok. My car is a physical, mechanical object, the state has a legitimate reason to ensure that my car is in good repair, and evidence of the annual inspection is posted visible to the public. No problem.

But it was an entirely different thing when I was stopped at a checkpoint where all vehicles were being stopped, and asked about "my papers being in order". There was no crime that had been committed, and when I was stopped I was not suspected of having committed any crime. Driving may be considered a 'privilege' -- but being in public, whether in an automobile, a bus or any other conveyance or setting does not in any way void my fourth amendment right to be from being stopped and questioned.

The difference is that of being stopped and questioned for being suspected of having committed a crime, vs -- being stopped an questioned to compel me to prove that I am in compliance with some law or regulation.

The fourth amendment has been steadily eroded in sections, until the notion of being asked "to present your papers" for no other reason than being in public is considered normal, and you have the Azrial's of the world saying it's all ok "because a law was passed' ----which in reality is often not anything to do with a "law being passed" (constitutional or otherwise), but is frequently just the result of law enforcement pushing the 4th amendment envelope and getting some fuzzy-headed judge to go along with it ---"for the good of public safety".

Russ

Lewis Wetzel

May 15, 2008, 22:21

Originally posted by sf46

Let me restate what's already been stated:

We're sworn to uphold the Constitution. I don't enforce unconstitutional laws. When the ATF came to speak about the '94 ban and about needing our help in the future when the next phase (gun confiscation) became law, everyone walked out of the meeting saying that we would not enforce that kind of unconstitutional crap and would not assist them when they are getting shot up while trying to enforce such unconstitutional foolishness.

I'll believe that when I see a videotape....

An LEO saying 'no can do' on the basis of unconstitutionality...It's the internet... you can say whatever the hell you want....

I JUST DON'T BELIEVE IT.....

And I've been advising Warren Buffet...that dumbass would be in the poorhouse if he hadn't been followed my advice....lucky for him I've been whispering in his ear....

Azrial

May 16, 2008, 00:34

Originally posted by Muggzy ...I know the State tells me it is a "privilege" of the State to be able to drive.

But I disagree.....I think it is a right guaranteed.........
OK, Where?
Originally posted by Muggzy ...
sometimes I wish i had gone to Law School instead of being a Playboy Photographer:rofl:
Given a choice between being rich and being happy, I will always take happy.

Azrial

May 16, 2008, 00:52

Originally posted by ftw54
It has always been a right to travel freely. The cops have bought into this thought that people have no right to travel freely and they should know all you do and where you are going.......
Your argument doesn't make any sense, Cops don't make laws in the United States.

If you don't like the idea of having to have a license to drive, get a big group to vote with you to change the law. If you can't find enough people who agree with you to make that happen, it might be time to realize that you are on the "fringe."

Hey, we all know that you are out there... :wink:

Azrial

May 16, 2008, 00:55

Originally posted by XHardrock
If the powers that be considered it right they would lose control, privileges are much easier to regulate.
Perhaps, but I know of no "powers that be" to have come to power in this country without being elected. We have only ourselves to blame!

Kyrottimus

May 16, 2008, 00:57

Originally posted by Azrial

OK, Where?..

In the U.S., the right to travel is derived from the synthesis of several rights. This was quite well laid out in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) at 125-126.

http://www.welcome.freeenterprisesociety.com/right_to_travel.htm

"The right to travel is a part of the `liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."

The case involved the Secretary of States refusal to issue a passport because the plaintiff wouldn't file an affidavit regarding his political beliefs. In the majority (5-4) opinion Justice William Douglas wrote"

The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law, that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta. Chafee, Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171-181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. See Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 44; Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160. "Our nation," wrote Chafee, has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases." Id. at 197.

Freedom of movement also has large social values. As Chafee put it: Foreign correspondents and lecturers on public affairs need first-hand information. Scientists and scholars gain greatly from consultations with colleagues in other countries. Students equip themselves for more fruitful careers in the United States by instruction in foreign universities. Then there are reasons close to the core of personal life -- marriage, reuniting families, spending hours with old friends. Finally, travel abroad enables American citizens to understand that people like themselves live in Europe, and helps them to be well informed on public issues. An American who has crossed the ocean is not obliged to form his opinions about our foreign policy merely from what he is told by officials of our government or by a few correspondents of American newspapers. Moreover, his views on domestic questions are enriched by seeing how foreigners are trying to solve similar problems. In many different ways, direct contact with other countries contributes to sounder decisions at home. Id. at 195-196. And see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13-14.

Freedom to travel is, indeed, an important aspect of the citizen's "liberty." We need not decide the extent to which it can be curtailed. We are first concerned with the extent, if any, to which Congress has authorized its curtailment.

Another interesting read:

http://sggoodri.home.mindspring.com/sidewalks/humanpower.htm

Azrial

May 16, 2008, 01:07

Originally posted by Heat
......Sorry, I dont think that the govt is in the business to dole out 'privledges' to people ...
Neither do I, but it is not a "right" If you want to see your "rights," we put then in a list so that you can keep track of them, also known as a "Bill."
Originally posted by Heat
like I said, my having a license has no bearing on my ability to drive safely, or even to have insurance for a possible accident, I would have insurance regardless..plenty of 'licensed' drivers kill themselves and others everyday driving poorly...
I never said that having a drivers license makes you a safer driver, I said that the people of this country thought that it would curb automotive related deaths. "They" demanded it, not the "police."
Originally posted by Heat
our govt, which you are an employee of is just a machine for generating income thru licenses, taxes, fines and fees. Did you have a point with this?

Azrial

May 16, 2008, 01:43

Originally posted by 1911guy
I don't know about the driving thing but I will bet a lot that if gun confiscation is passed the police will take part. There may be some rural guys locally who won't participate but they live in the area so I'm not sure they want to bust in a neighbors door. They might come home from work to find family and home sorta distressed.
I would not be surprised to see imports do the job or have it outsourced to Blackwater or =.
I am a true believer in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I doubt that there are many members of this board that aren't. That is how I was raised, by a man that gave his eyes in the service of his country. That is why I will not violate the 2nd Amendment.

Not because I am afraid of a pussy that would threaten my family when I was not home.

Azrial

May 16, 2008, 02:08

Originally posted by Russ
Yeah, well .... just when I think there is hope for Az -- and us 'civilians'....he relapses!!

Quit being a liar and I will respond to your posts. I have never refereed to other citizens as civilians as you imply by putting the word in quotes.

You sometimes have a point in your posts, but then you start playing games like the "Az" BS, and stooping to the the cliché Nazi references.

Why not try debateing a point stright up, like a man, for a change?

Azrial

May 16, 2008, 02:12

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kyrottimus
In the U.S., the right to travel is derived from the synthesis of several rights. This was quite well laid out in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) at 125-126.
Kyrottimus, nice to see you here. But we are not talking about travel, we were talking about driving.

One may be a way to do the other, but they are not one and the same.

(Time to sleep guys, I be back out to play tomorrow, if I don't have too much homework! :D )

Kyrottimus

May 16, 2008, 02:30

ftierson

May 16, 2008, 02:33

Originally posted by Azrial
(Time to sleep guys, I be back out to play tomorrow, if I don't have too much homework! :D )

Stay safe...

Later...

:)

Forrest

Muggzy

May 16, 2008, 06:38

Azrial,

I don't know where, exactly. I'm no where close to being able to argue this,
because I have little knowledge of all the laws and their interpretations. It just doesn't seem right. But then I also understand they ( the States) have to have laws for "driving" in their State. InterState Commerce also would be involved with this too.

I don't understand why they call it a privelege. If it IS a Right then they have the right to regulate it but don't call it a privelege.

I guess the word "privelege" is what I object to

Kyrottimus posted a good argument or one portion of it that could be argued, I think. Travel and driving are the same in my eyes and if I have to drive/travel for my employment then I consider that my Right not a privelege granted by the State. I have a Right to earn a living don't I?

I wish I had more education .....frustrating:wink:

shlomo

May 16, 2008, 07:15

One point that no one has raised is that, currently, interstate travel by public transportation of any kind (bus, train, or plane) requires "papers being shown".

When we combine this with the requirement to have a permit to drive one's own private vehicle, we are left with the reality that the right to travel without restriction has been reduced to being a pedestrian. I was going to include bicycles, but I remembered several places I've lived that required registration of those, as well, if used on the public roads.

Azrail--

Not to be a wiseguy, but take a look in your Criminal Law and Motor Vehicle Handbook at OCGA 40-1-1-24(b). Read it carefully, and tell me if your reaction isn't, :eek:.

For those not in Georgia, the statute reads:

(24) "License" or "license to operate a motor vehicle" means any driver's license or any other license or permit to operate a motor vehicle issued under, or granted by, the laws of this state, including:
(B) The privilege of any person to drive a motor vehicle whether or not such person holds a valid license;

Somebody told me about this years and years ago, and I've had a lot of fun since showing it to attorneys and various Po-lice to get their take. :devil:

Muggzy

May 16, 2008, 07:42

In Websters "right" and "Privilege" look to have the same meaning:confused:

sf46

May 16, 2008, 08:25

You don't need "papers" to hire a taxi or a limo. All you need is cash.

You might be aware though, that it is illegal to be a pedestrian on the Interstate highway in several states including Louisiana.

Heat

May 16, 2008, 12:11

Originally posted by Azrial

Neither do I, but it is not a "right" If you want to see your "rights," we put then in a list so that you can keep track of them, also known as a "Bill."

I never said that having a drivers license makes you a safer driver, I said that the people of this country thought that it would curb automotive related deaths. "They" demanded it, not the "police."
Did you have a point with this?
Yeah, its all about money..point made

deerollman

May 16, 2008, 12:45

Originally posted by Azrial

I am a true believer in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I doubt that there are many members of this board that aren't. That is how I was raised, by a man that gave his eyes in the service of his country. That is why I will not violate the 2nd Amendment.

Not because I am afraid of a pussy that would threaten my family when I was not home.

that said, i would really like to see your thoughts regarding my last post (below). to reiterate, i am looking for debate, not bickering or insinuations.

however, to stop and check someone for a license when there is absolutely no reason to believe they dont have one is clearly unreasonable to me. further, the stops are "DUI" checks, not "LICENSE" checks. you are stopped to check, with no reason whatsoever to suspect otherwise, that you are sober. again, i dont see how anyone can call that reasonable.

by such reasoning, police can stop anyone, at anytime, if it crosses their mind that you are might be a jaywalker, or a child molester, or that there is cocaine residue on one of your dollar bills (newsflash: there probably is).

how exactly is that a "reasonable" argument to stop someone?

Azrial

May 16, 2008, 14:02

Originally posted by Muggzy
....It just doesn't seem right.
I am not saying that it is my friend, I am saying that the people wanted it. The first state to require a driver’s license was New York or New Jersey, I don't remember which. The individual states were the ones to first push this law, not the Fed and again, at the citizen's request. The people are the ones that created this Pandora's Box.

Do you believe that we should require a license of those who desire to fly an airplane? I do, I think most do. I mean who wants some rich untrained yo-yo to crash a plane into their home, or their children's school? Driving was looked on like that in the early 1900's.

I am also saying that at 100 years it would be tough to get rid of it, especially with today's concerns of terrorism. While I am not happy about all the places and activities that require identification and more to come, I frankly do not have a better alternative. Do you or anyone?

That is the real problem here, a few folks posting about what they don't like, not offering any other workable solution, and somehow blaming me for the whole mess! :eek::confused::cry::rofl:

Originally posted by Muggzy
I wish I had more education .....frustrating:wink:
I have always found you a polite man with something interesting to say. Education comes from more places then books.

tuck0411

May 16, 2008, 14:51

Originally posted by Azrial

Neither do I, but it is not a "right" If you want to see your "rights," we put then in a list so that you can keep track of them, also known as a "Bill."

Without taking a position on whether driving is a right or a privilege, I'd just point out that our rights are not limited to those outlined in the Bill of Rights. This is addressed in the 9th Amendment - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. " So, would the founding fathers call driving one of these un-enumerated rights? I suspect at least some of them would have, while at the same time acknowledging that states have the right (and the resposibility) to regulate it for purposes of public safety.

ar15junkie

May 16, 2008, 14:58

Originally posted by Azrial

That is the real problem here, a few folks posting about what they don't like, not offering any other workable solution, and somehow blaming me for the whole mess! :eek::confused::cry::rofl:

I've not read one single post here indicating that you "Azrial" have violated anyones rights or otherwise done somebody wrong. Yet every post which comes up here discussing the actions or possible actions of police you feel responsible for defending your brothers and half the time you don't even agree with them or what they've done.

StarPD

May 16, 2008, 15:19

I think that most posters here who vent their spleen regarding abuse of authority by LEOs are justifiably outraged over the events, however isolated. The incidents we read about are undoubtedly completely unacceptable to anyone, current and ex-cops included.

Nevertheless, hating all cops, calling them names, and resenting them all in general is not rational, although I have little doubt that those who do so because of getting a ticket or having had an unpleasant confrontation with a cop probably think it is.

The fact is however that the percentage of LEOs who violate their oath and harm or abuse citizens is quite low. I suspect if one were able to get stats that illustrate how many LEOs there are in the CONUS, then how many incidents of abuse of authority and/or power there are every year, it might put things in a clearer perspective.

I think one thing we can all agree on is that most younger officers are not like those we grew up with or are what we expect from them. Guess what? That's because like in every other profession, they come from US. Yes, that's right, they are a microcosm of society, the same society that teaches kids that there are no standards, that morals are all relative, and that there should be no consequences for bad behavior, much less disrespect and obnoxious attitudes. The fact that we tolerate such lack of values in the first place, and that we don't actually DO anything about the public schools that promote and support such lack of principles, should be obvious to even the densest of us. How then can we expect the police departments to find and hire enough who ARE taught by their familes to be decent honorable men? Those few, BTW, are aware of the disdain and contempt many hold for police. Why then should we expect them to voluntarily submit themselves to such hatred and abuse? As for the rest, how many of you have joined with neighbors and marched on your local school board and demanded that they stop teaching kids Marxist principles, homosexuality and other amorality, and that they teach your kids morals, values, and standards? How many of you are disgusted enough over the way your kids are being indoctrinated in public schools to home school them, or pay the added money it costs to enroll them in good parochial schools? If you can't answer "ME" to these questions, you have no right to complain about the quality of people today, and that includes police officers, for they are as much a part of society as you are.

Face it, we get the police we deserve, just like we get the politicians we allow to sully our government. They all come from us, just like the brave heroes the Admiral asked about in WWII when he wondered "Where do we get such men?"
They are all part and parcel of our society, for better or worse. If some of the younger police officers who fantasize that they are officially JBTs even attempt such, it is because we as a nation don't teach our children discipline, honor, and respect.

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap".

StarPD

May 16, 2008, 15:35

ar15junkie wrote:
I've not read one single post here indicating that you "Azrial" have violated anyones rights or otherwise done somebody wrong. Yet every post which comes up here discussing the actions or possible actions of police you feel responsible for defending your brothers and half the time you don't even agree with them or what they've done.
With all due respect, that's a contradictory statement in itself. How can Azrial not even agree with them or what they've done, and still defend them? That doesn't make sense. Fact is, Azrial is truly one of the good guys, and I've yet to see him rationaize or approve of police wrongdoing. He frequently explains police duties and responsibilites for those who are unaware, and may even try to explain the cause of bad behavior, but defend wrongdoers? I've never seen it. That doesn't mean he doesn't disagree with some about police procedures and policies, which BTW, IS his right, but condoning bad behavior by cops? No way. At best, he does insist on getting ALL of the facts before passing judgement on video clips and so-called "news" reports, (and we all know how reliable they are). I don't consider that anything less than our American tradition of "innocent until proven gulty". Too frequently, in both video clips and so-called "news" reports, there is, as Paul Harvey says, "the rest of the story", which we often don't get.

If all LEOs were as good as Azrial, we wouldn't even be writing these threads. The same goes for the other honorable men in the profession that are members here. I say give them all the same respect and consideration you expect yourselves. Anyone who refuses to do that invalidates and discredits anything they have to say on the subject.

GSP228

May 16, 2008, 15:54

Originally posted by shlomo
One point that no one has raised is that, currently, interstate travel by public transportation of any kind (bus, train, or plane) requires "papers being shown".

When we combine this with the requirement to have a permit to drive one's own private vehicle, we are left with the reality that the right to travel without restriction has been reduced to being a pedestrian. I was going to include bicycles, but I remembered several places I've lived that required registration of those, as well, if used on the public roads.

Azrail--

Not to be a wiseguy, but take a look in your Criminal Law and Motor Vehicle Handbook at OCGA 40-1-1-24(b). Read it carefully, and tell me if your reaction isn't, :eek:.

For those not in Georgia, the statute reads:

(24) "License" or "license to operate a motor vehicle" means any driver's license or any other license or permit to operate a motor vehicle issued under, or granted by, the laws of this state, including:
(B) The privilege of any person to drive a motor vehicle whether or not such person holds a valid license;

Somebody told me about this years and years ago, and I've had a lot of fun since showing it to attorneys and various Po-lice to get their take. :devil: What's wrong with that section of Title 40 of OCGA?

deerollman

May 16, 2008, 16:37

Originally posted by GSP228
What's wrong with that section of Title 40 of OCGA?

i believe he is reffering to the ominous word "priveledge".

deerollman

May 16, 2008, 16:41

Originally posted by StarPD

Face it, we get the police we deserve, just like we get the politicians we allow to sully our government. They all come from us, just like the brave heroes the Admiral asked about in WWII when he wondered "Where do we get such men?"
They are all part and parcel of our society, for better or worse. If some of the younger police officers who fantasize that they are officially JBTs even attempt such, it is because we as a nation don't teach our children discipline, honor, and respect.

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap".

that is a damn fine statement, and a reminder the WE, as potentially the last line of defence against the tyranny imagined in the OP, should be the best that we can be. and raise our children to do the same.

unfortunately, we are swimming against a strong current:|

jrkoller

May 16, 2008, 16:45

I have been reading this and Driving license came up but no
one mentioned Hunting license and the DNR !! Never had a run in with the DNR but know people who have and they got screwed guns taken fishen poles taken and can't hunt for 3 to 5 years and no meat on the table for the FAMILY.

As Far as Fed. gun confiscation I don't think it will happen!!! But just in case does anyone have a Horse i can use to notify everyone that the butt head are coming because I can't afford the gas!!
Joe

StarPD

May 16, 2008, 17:06

A lot of people in AZ have horses. Wouldn't it be funny of they all started riding them downtown, to the supermakets, movies, church, and other destinations?
And wouldn't the TV stations have a field day with that?

Manoman, would I love to see that

Horse poop everywhere. :rofl:

"Honey, watch out for the horse poop....and that one...and that one....and, oh, let's just go home."

(Holds sides and can't breathe for laughing)

ar15junkie

May 16, 2008, 20:42

Originally posted by StarPD
ar15junkie wrote:

With all due respect, that's a contradictory statement in itself. How can Azrial not even agree with them or what they've done, and still defend them? That doesn't make sense.

I agree with you 100%. I don't understand it either.

shlomo

May 16, 2008, 22:06

Originally posted by GSP228
What's wrong with that section of Title 40 of OCGA?

Nothing wrong per se, but pay close attention to subsection B. If you read the section, it is clearly saying that the term "license" means...blah blah blah.. including;
(B) the privilege of any person to drive a motor vehicle, whether or not such person holds a valid license. (my italics)

I've shown that to a half dozen attorneys I know, and about the same number of local cops. The Po-lice usually find it amusing, but the attorneys look like a deer in the headlights.

Russ

May 16, 2008, 22:13

I think StarPD you might be thinking of the Admiral in "Bridges Over Toko-Ri", s movie set in the Korean War, and the Admiral lamenting the loss of his favorite pilot (played by WIlliam Holden)= all based on the James Michener novel.
-------------------------------------------------------
Az for Azrial, his latest non-response to me, it was filled with the usual personal attacks, and basically an acknowledgement of issues I talk about, but no counter or rebuttal to them. That pretty much tells you all you need to know about Azrial.

Trying to stem the ongoing erosion of our constitutional rights is an uphill fight, because most people see LEO misconduct as an issue of the errant actions of individual police officers, rather than the encroaching dynamic of society, and the governments of societies, to have a built-in dynamic to control. Afterall, its THE basic instinct of any living entity. (and it is the underpinning of the whole purpose of creation, but that'll be a story for another day).

When I actually did have my guns confiscated, almost fifteen years ago, the real wrong-doer was not the Barney FIfe type police lieutenant that led the charge into my home while I slept in my bedroom (and who later was fired). Rather, it was the compromise of passing a horrendous piece of legislation like PA Act 17 which allowed the un-adjudicated (as in: no hearing, no due process rights) loss of 2nd amendment rights, and wrongful seizure of private property, also without the protection of any hearing or other forum to contest the issue. In the hands of a county Asst District Attorney, my confiscated gun collection was described as "...a veritable arsenal" and I was used as a test case to allow this newly passed law to become an extraordinary government weapon to seize guns and disbar RKBA without ever giving the accused (me, in this case) a chance to contest it. Fortunately the government lost. Like many of the other responses on this thread, the invasion of my home and seizure was not based on something I had actually done or said, but rather was justified after-the-fact as being based on a fear of what I might do.

A real driver of the "mission-creep" of law enforcement are the Azrial-type LEO's, and I have always found an almost identical personality/mentality whenever I encounter them. They are swell guys, so long as you DO NOT question them, challenge their authority to do something, or engage in any behavior that hints that you are on an equal footing with them, or act as if both of you have equal footing in the eyes of the law. They have an intense craving to control others, and they were attracted to law enforcement as a means of satisfying this need.

When you understand that government operates on an almost identical dynamic of seeking to control others, and that law enforcement is essentially an agent of government, you have a very powerful dynamic to keep pushing the envelope on individual rights to be free from unreasonable government intrusion.

And THAT is the reason why we need LEO's who first and fundamentally respect the law, and the Constitution as its foundation, rather than policemen like Azrial who sees and worships himself as the law, and whose discussions to date reflect an attitude that the constitution is just a murky guideline that he must interpret for the general public. THAT is the reason we now have "liscence-check checkpoints" and "hoaky DUI checkpoints" and indiivduals being stopped, questioned and searched because "they were acting in a suspicious manner".

In another incident, I was stopped in the early evening enroute to visit my children. The officer who stopped me explained that I "didn't quite exactly fully stop" at a stop sign (I did), and that he had checked my vehicle tag and it indicated my car was not registered. He went back to his cruiser, and a few minutes later returned to me and said: "Well it must be your lucky night, the computer is down and I can't verify the status of your vehicle registration" -- I then went on my way without any citation. Of course my vehicle was properly registered, and the whole thing smacked of a classic hummer-bust, stopping someone for a minimal or non-existant reason, and then escalating the situation to question the individual, conduct a search, and generally fish for something the officer suspects might be there because of his "policman's intuition" which is not evident in any factual basis.

There are some terrifically good and right-minded LEO's, including folks who post on this board -- they becoming increasingly rare, and they are truly the last blue-line of defense.

Russ

Tak

May 16, 2008, 22:15

Originally posted by Heat
If we get one of the two motherfkers from the left as President and either one pushes thru a ban on say, handguns or MBR's--just curious, how many of the LEO's that frequent the Boards here are going to 'pitch in' and start the collection process of those firearms...I am curious, when the rubber DOES meet the road..where will they be on the issue?

How many officers, troopers, agents, or National guard, etc. refused to confiscate weapons in New Orleans?

Even if 90% of those LEOs refused, that still leaves a lot of JBT's who are ready and willing to pistol whip your grandma to confiscate her old bolt action .22 rifle.

dscottch

May 16, 2008, 23:32

Originally posted by shlomo

Nothing wrong per se, but pay close attention to subsection B. If you read the section, it is clearly saying that the term "license" means...blah blah blah.. including;
(B) the privilege of any person to drive a motor vehicle, whether or not such person holds a valid license. (my italics)

I've shown that to a half dozen attorneys I know, and about the same number of local cops. The Po-lice usually find it amusing, but the attorneys look like a deer in the headlights.

shlomo, I don't know if this explains the (seemingly) contradiction, but in Virginia when I was a kid, you could paint farm use on the back of your truck and anyone could drive it. License or not, heck I rode with my 12 year old friend from the barn to his house many times. However, if you were stopped, you had to explain why you were using it. We spoke with a few officers and never had a problem. I guess what I'm saying is, there were exceptions to needing a license to drive on a public road. I don't know if it still holds true.

oops I almost forgot,
Br. Scott

shlomo

May 17, 2008, 00:37

Originally posted by dscottch

shlomo, I don't know if this explains the (seemingly) contradiction, but in Virginia when I was a kid, you could paint farm use on the back of your truck and anyone could drive it. License or not, heck I rode with my 12 year old friend from the barn to his house many times. However, if you were stopped, you had to explain why you were using it. We spoke with a few officers and never had a problem. I guess what I'm saying is, there were exceptions to needing a license to drive on a public road. I don't know if it still holds true.

oops I almost forgot,
Br. Scott

(In my best Wilford Brimley voice) Yeah, but the law don't say that!

sf46

May 17, 2008, 01:00

Originally posted by jrkoller
I have been reading this and Driving license came up but no
one mentioned Hunting license and the DNR !! Never had a run in with the DNR but know people who have and they got screwed guns taken fishen poles taken and can't hunt for 3 to 5 years and no meat on the table for the FAMILY.

As Far as Fed. gun confiscation I don't think it will happen!!! But just in case does anyone have a Horse i can use to notify everyone that the butt head are coming because I can't afford the gas!!
Joe

Look I have absolutely no sympathy for folks who are out poaching and selling deer meat. I've seen it many times with some of the local hunters. They brag about not having a good year because they "only" killed 25 deer this year (the limit is 6), yet they want to cry when the big mean game warden busts their *ss for being the poacher that they are.

You know what the rules are, and you know what the consequences are if you get caught breaking them.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime....

Azrial

May 17, 2008, 01:53

Originally posted by shlomo
Azrail--

Not to be a wiseguy, but take a look in your Criminal Law and Motor Vehicle Handbook at OCGA 40-1-1-24(b). Read it carefully, and tell me if your reaction isn't, :eek:.

For those not in Georgia, the statute reads:

(24) "License" or "license to operate a motor vehicle" means any driver's license or any other license or permit to operate a motor vehicle issued under, or granted by, the laws of this state, including:
(B) The privilege of any person to drive a motor vehicle whether or not such person holds a valid license;

Somebody told me about this years and years ago, and I've had a lot of fun since showing it to attorneys and various Po-lice to get their take. :devil:
Here is the deal, in Georgia, the privilege to drive is independent of you actually having a license to exercise that privilege.

Here is an example, an unlicensed person is caught driving. He is charged with Driving without a Driver's License, not to be confused with Driving without a license in your Possession. He is issued a license number on conviction and this is suspended, so that the system can keep up with him. Therefore the license is independent of the actual privilege.

How did I do for maintaining my rep as a Know-it-all cop? ;)

Azrial

May 17, 2008, 02:21

Originally posted by deerollman
that said, i would really like to see your thoughts regarding my last post (below). to reiterate, i am looking for debate, not bickering or insinuations.

however, to stop and check someone for a license when there is absolutely no reason to believe they dont have one is clearly unreasonable to me. further, the stops are "DUI" checks, not "LICENSE" checks. you are stopped to check, with no reason whatsoever to suspect otherwise, that you are sober. again, i dont see how anyone can call that reasonable.

by such reasoning, police can stop anyone, at anytime, if it crosses their mind that you are might be a jaywalker, or a child molester, or that there is cocaine residue on one of your dollar bills (newsflash: there probably is).

how exactly is that a "reasonable" argument to stop someone?
First, I am not a big fan of checkpoints.

Second, I have not seen a DUI Checkpoint in Georgia in years. While the Supremes ruled that the states interest in preventing drunk driving out weighted this "Minor infringement" of the Bill of Rights, I do not agree. I do not think that DUI checkpoints should be legal. I have never worked one or ordered one. I have refused to let my officers set them up in the past.

I have run a few "fake" DUI Checkpoints. They are great fun. :D

Besides catching DUIs is easy. I prefer directed patrol for this choir. I can spot them a mile away, really.

I do think that some check points are legal and necessary.

There is a huge and I would think obvious difference in a stop to determine if a citizen possesses a valid and proper license to drive, fish, hunt, operate a 2-way radio, or fly and stopping citizens at random to fish for evidence that they might be a child molester.

One act is regulation, the other is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I believe that any time you engage in a regulated act that requires a license you might expect to have someone ask you to exhibit the required license.

Azrial

May 17, 2008, 02:32

Originally posted by ar15junkie
I've not read one single post here indicating that you "Azrial" have violated anyones rights or otherwise done somebody wrong. Yet every post which comes up here discussing the actions or possible actions of police you feel responsible for defending your brothers and half the time you don't even agree with them or what they've done.
No, I am just kind of funny about insisting that the police are entitled to the same rights as every other citizen in this country. Something that many citizens and even the government forgits.

The title of this thread and its subject matter are "gun confiscation." Where have you ever seen me defend that are any of the people involved in it.

I have stated that the few police that were in involved in it in New Orleans were only part of the problem, and that laying the whole blame at their door is to ignore the rest of the problem.

Azrial

May 17, 2008, 02:39

Originally posted by StarPD
......Face it, we get the police we deserve, just like we get the politicians we allow to sully our government. They all come from us, just like the brave heroes the Admiral asked about in WWII when he wondered "Where do we get such men?"
They are all part and parcel of our society, for better or worse. If some of the younger police officers who fantasize that they are officially JBTs even attempt such, it is because we as a nation don't teach our children discipline, honor, and respect.

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap".
Damn Stright!
I am sorry to say it, but this is not our Father's America! :(
Good Post!

Azrial

May 17, 2008, 02:54

Originally posted by Russ
.........rather than policemen like Azrial who sees and worships himself as the law.....
Russ, post your proof of that statement or accept the obvious reason that I refuse to debate with you, you are a petty liar.

With your mischaracterizations, your bullshit Nazi comparisons and your childlike games with my net name I simpley do not find you the type of 'man" that I enjoy converseing with.

I do not really care what you think, even of you happen to agree with me.

Azrial

May 17, 2008, 02:58

Originally posted by ftierson
Stay safe...
Later...
:)

Forrest
Thanks! :D

ar15junkie

May 17, 2008, 03:16

Originally posted by Azrial

No, I am just kind of funny about insisting that the police are entitled to the same rights as every other citizen in this country. Something that many citizens and even the government forgits.

Which rights are police being deprived of?

Originally posted by Azrial

The title of this thread and its subject matter are "gun confiscation." Where have you ever seen me defend that are any of the people involved in it.

What?

Originally posted by Azrial
I have stated that the few police that were in involved in it in New Orleans were only part of the problem, and that laying the whole blame at their door is to ignore the rest of the problem.

I agree. The politicians, the NG and on up the line. We expect it from the politicians. The NG was a new one. The police on the other hand we, or at lease I expect to know better.

I also agree with George, the old guard is nothing like the new. For the most part the old guys were calm and they respected people as long as you respected them. I crossed paths with 2 or 3 20 something yr old cops and all needed their behinds stomped. Just my experience with one department though.

Jailguard

May 17, 2008, 08:16

Ar15junkie
when was the last time you saw a group of civilians (for lack of a better term) get away with beating up some one ( the black student that beat the white kid at some hight school over a noose in a tree comes to mind) be found not guilty of the crime and then have the feds pick up the case to try them for civil rights violation. This happens with police quite often we can have a good use of force or shooting be found inn the clear and if some group yell loud enough you get brought up on civil rights charges.
Azrial defends LEO'S in what are to most witch hunts. He just wants the full story befor he passes judgement. He will call a turd a turd if need be but not with half a story. There are some here that would beleive that all LEO are evil and should be gotten rid of. That is thier right but along with that right they need to understand there needs to be some kind of police force to keep the peace.

Azrial
Yeah I blame you for every thing the drought and fires here in Florida and the whole Dem. party. it is all your fault.:D

shlomo

May 17, 2008, 08:22

Originally posted by Azrial
How did I do for maintaining my rep as a Know-it-all cop? ;)

Fair, but the nut of the question is, how can somebody even be charged with driving without a license, when the very definition of a license includes, "The privilege of any person to drive a motor vehicle whether or not such person holds a valid license", by the plain language of the statute?

Excellent answer on the checkpoint issue. Reflects my thoughts exactly. I should note that Cherokee County SO set up DUI checkpoints this past New Years. I was initially cheesed on general principle as I approached it, but to their credit, they kept things moving and mainly looked at the drivers, and not the licenses held out the windows. Apparently the pie-eyed and slack-jawed were invited to the side for a closer look.

Azrial

May 17, 2008, 08:32

Originally posted by ar15junkie
Which rights are police being deprived of?
Police Officers are regularly deprived of due process, both civil and criminal, particularly in relation to high profile accusations of misconduct.

Garrity is frequently ignored or abused with the officer forced to cooperate with the internal investigation then having product of that investigation used against them in a subsequent criminal case.

In states that even allow their officers to organize, many don't, Weingarten is ignored or discouraged.

In criminal investigations, particularly those involving deadly force, in the hysteria of the Administration's desire to quickly quell public outrage Officers Fifth Amendment protections and even Miranda are sacrificed.

Forget any idea of being protected from "Age Discrimination" when departments are regularly allowed to screen out and run off older officers you get the last problem we will discuss in my post. The Feds almost uniformly deny older applicants employment to LE positions after 41.

Those are a few.
Originally posted by ar15junkie
What?
Hee hee sorry, it made sense when I was half asleep. It should have read:
The title of this thread and its subject matter are "gun confiscation." Where have you ever seen me defend any of the people involved in it.
Originally posted by ar15junkie
.......I also agree with George, the old guard is nothing like the new. For the most part the old guys were calm and they respected people as long as you respected them. I crossed paths with 2 or 3 20 something yr old cops and all needed their behinds stomped. Just my experience with one department though.
I agree with George as well, but there are many fine young officers out there, just fewer every year. But the same could be said of all professions in America.

deerollman

May 17, 2008, 12:20

i share similar thoughts on the supreme's decision. to me, a minor infringement of the bill of rights doesnt make it any better of an infringement.

where i live it is mountainous. i crested a hill one time (on interstate 40!) only to find a line of cars stopped in front of me a couple hundred yards out, as a result of a slowly processed dui check. had to lock the breaks to keep from hitting them. officer safety comes flying up, pulls me aside, and grills me on why i was driving unsafely! (i had been going the speed limit) damn near wrecked, and then got berated for it!

im all for getting joe shitfaced off the road, but roadblocks seem like the wrong, and unconstitutional, way to do it. and as you said, i too can see them "a mile away".

Azrial

May 17, 2008, 22:49

Originally posted by shlomo
Fair, but the nut of the question is, how can somebody even be charged with driving without a license, when the very definition of a license includes, "The privilege of any person to drive a motor vehicle whether or not such person holds a valid license", by the plain language of the statute?
OK, but I stand by my answer. The law is written like so that most of the standard violations of the law related to driver's licenses still apply to those that just happened to never have had one.

Driving under Suspension
Habitual Violator
Under-aged drinking mandatory license suspension
Suspension of license or operating privilege for conduct in another state
Denial or suspension of license for noncompliance with child support order
Implied consent to chemical tests

All (and more) apply to every citizen, whether they have ever had a driver's license issued or not. Were this not so we would have to have special laws written for non-licensed violators.

GSP228

May 18, 2008, 00:36

Azrial-Will trying to explain to him about a 9800 # help with this? You can probably do it better than I can.

shlomo

May 18, 2008, 06:16

Az-

About half of that makes sense to me. Folks oughta get ticketed, fined or whatever for moving violations and the like, whether with or without a license.

But things like driving on a suspended license (when the person had none to begin with) seem a bit of a stretch, as does a charge of driving w/o license when the statute includes the "privilege" in the definition what "license" means.

As far as implied consent goes, do I understand correctly that the basis of this is the signature on the license?

And what is a 9800 #?

On another note, was the Fun Show worth a rip? Thinking about going today, but dunno if I wanna pay eight bucks to look at the same ole same ole.

sf46

May 18, 2008, 10:45

Originally posted by deerollman
i share similar thoughts on the supreme's decision. to me, a minor infringement of the bill of rights doesnt make it any better of an infringement.

where i live it is mountainous. i crested a hill one time (on interstate 40!) only to find a line of cars stopped in front of me a couple hundred yards out, as a result of a slowly processed dui check. had to lock the breaks to keep from hitting them. officer safety comes flying up, pulls me aside, and grills me on why i was driving unsafely! (i had been going the speed limit) damn near wrecked, and then got berated for it!

im all for getting joe shitfaced off the road, but roadblocks seem like the wrong, and unconstitutional, way to do it. and as you said, i too can see them "a mile away".

You're always free to turn around and go the other way. It is not mandatory that you go through the DWI checkpoint.

In order for them to fit within the Constitution (according to the courts), a DWI checkpoint has to be conducted within very strict guidelines. In most states a press release has to be conducted (usually a newspaper article will suffice) giving the date time and location of the checkpoint. Large signs of a certain size have to be put up so many feet before the checkpoint. The checkpoint can't be set up on a stretch of road where there is no other way around. Drivers must be free to turn around and not enter the checkpoint if they don't want to. Vehicles can't be stopped for nerely turning around (assuming that no violation is committing while turning around. There are other guidlelines as well.

DWI checkpoints from a law enforcement stand point really are more hassle than they are worth. The average checkpoint ties up 10-15 officers and usually averages only 3 drunks taken off the road. If each of these officers were simply riding around looking for impaired motorists the total number could be 10-30 drunks arrested. DWI checkpoints are simply publicity stunts for the public to see officer presence, and for the crooked politicians that YOU keep electing to look like they are tough on DWI's.

deerollman

May 18, 2008, 13:51

i can only take your word for it that the guidelines are as you say.

my experience says that these guidelines are not enforced. the situation on I40 i mentioned, no one w/o a good four wheel drive could turn around.

i have watched on COPS the said cops going apeshit over someone turning around to "flee" a checkpoint. chase, wreck, arrest.

i have also been riding with some dolt who, approaching the ghetto we used to live in (the road only led to the ghetto), stopped cold when he saw the roadblock. dumbass didnt have his license on him. the cops, every one, were staring at us like dogs who've just seen their first cat. i have no doubt that we would have been pursued if we had turned around. after i convinced his dumb ass to proceed to the checkpoint, the officers pulled us aside and gave us all sorts of shit for daring not to hastily procede to the checkpoint. this was clearly an indication of guilt.

ymmv.

Russ

May 18, 2008, 15:29

I am certain that I've seen on tv (yeah, I know how it sounds) 'reality' cop shows multiple instances of the police giving chase for someone who turned away from a checkpoint, and I don't recall anything about making illegal u-turns. When I passed through a "checkpoint" it was around 2pm on a sunny Memorial Day holiday -- it was on a road that would offer no turn-off points prior to being able to see the checkpoint. I don't think the officers involved even made any pretense about it being a search for DUIs.

THis thread has brought some interesting exchanges, even Azrial has broken his solemn Vow of Silence to my last post, but I think some good things have happened here. Afterall, he started out with an attitude that there isn't anything wrong with the current trajectory of law enforcement, to now sort of grudgingly mentioning that maybe there are some concerns. He even noted that DUI checkpoints aren't his favorite thing, or words to that effect.

I think there is hope. And I honestly do not have any ax to grind with Azrial, or any law enforcement officer. Like most of us, I reflexively want to view all law enforcement as something noble, to look up to; I've always felt that way.

I never saw making posts on Falfiles as a competition, I am really not big on separating folks into 'winners' and 'losers'. Rather, I see that the direction of society as a whole is almost inevitably moving towards creating a 'beehive' mentality, a strictly utilitarian type society aimed at maximizing material production and consumption. The LEO issue is just a small harbinger.

If you want to see the most ancient, oldest long-standing societies in existance, go visit your local ant colony -- and they've been doing things that way since before the dinasauers. Think it over.

Russ

Azrial

May 18, 2008, 22:24

Russ, I noticed that you have offered no proof to support your first lie and yet here you come with more. I never took a "vow of silence" concerning you. I said that I find you to be a bit of a weasel and I will not debate you. You usually have no idea what you are babbling about and you are quite willing to stoop to lying in a lame attempt to bolster your frequently non-existent point.

My attitudes about checkpoints are the same as they ever were. Some are legal and some are not. I don't care what you "think" that you know about the subject.

Law Enforcement is what I have done for the majority of my life. Frankly, I do not believe some Internet halfwit who protests too loudly that he has "no ax to grind" with me or the police in general, despite all his actions showing otherwise, can teach me one damn thing about checkpoints.

I have chatted with you enough in the past to know that you are largely a waste of time.

Azrial

May 18, 2008, 22:50

SF46's take on checkpoints is slightly different then mine. But he was talking about DUI checkpoints and I am not. Keep in mind that state laws and even local jurisdictions vary. I do not know what state he is in.

Generally speaking, a search or seizure violates the 4th Amendment and is held as unreasonable when the police lack an "individualized suspicion of wrongdoing." Hence the changes in DUI Checkpoints.

A driver license or registration checkpoint on the other hand is part of the states effort to regulate the act of driving and to promote safety. It requires no "individualized suspicion" just the lawful presumption that you should have a valid license in your possession if you are driving.

I have not seen a DUI checkpoint in Georgia in many years, but I do not survey the entire state every night. I have seen driver's license check points, I went through two last week just like any other citizen and no I did not flash an ID. I though that they were run very professionally and with minimal intrusion.

You must go through them.
They do not require you to have an "out."
I have never seen or posted an advertisement announcing them.
The officers will usually give chase if you commit an infraction to avoid them.
I have never seen a sign announcing them, like the old "DUI Checkpoint Ahead" we used to use.

My opinion is they are legal. I find them more effective for some purposes then others. They were not my favorite tool when I was working traffic.

John Culver

May 18, 2008, 23:52

another annoyance is govts that like to giver cops more rights then they will me.

For example. concealed carry is legal for RETIRED LEO's but not for civilians (without a permit).

Makes little sense to me

Russ

May 19, 2008, 20:18

Originally posted by Azrial

I have chatted with you enough in the past to know that you are largely a waste of time.

Aw cut it out Az, yer' making me blush !

And you DO keep coming back, huh? Drawn like a moth to the flame, so to speak...

Russ

Azrial

May 20, 2008, 01:29

Originally posted by Russ
Aw cut it out Az, yer' making me blush ! And you DO keep coming back, huh? Drawn like a moth to the flame, so to speak... Russ
I'll say one thing for you, you do live a rich fantasy life!

deerollman

May 20, 2008, 12:17

supremes said that given the significant danger posed by drunk drivers, the state has a real interest in keeping them off the road, and therefore the forth amend can be brushed aside because of the 'minor inconvenience' of having to pass through a roadblock.

i do not agree, but it is law. opinions mean nothing.

however, this only pertains to DUI checkpoints. afaik, any other roadblocks would be unconstituional. i have passed thorugh one barney fife roadblock on the way to the beach, guessing they were just fishing for violations for the poor county i was in.

im guessing the regulations sf46 cites are specific to his state, he cites little evidence. i have never heard of any such things. the issue of legally turning around to avoid a roadblock is interesting and afaik not tested in court.

Azrial

May 20, 2008, 13:28

Originally posted by deerollman
supremes said that given the significant danger posed by drunk drivers, the state has a real interest in keeping them off the road, and therefore the forth amend can be brushed aside because of the 'minor inconvenience' of having to pass through a roadblock.
All law is a compromise with absolute freedom. I know of no civilization where absolute freedom has ever existed, nor can I imagine how it would work.
Originally posted by deerollman
however, this only pertains to DUI checkpoints. afaik, any other roadblocks would be unconstituional....
I kind of agree with you here, what SF46 said would apply to any checkpoint where the police needed an "individualized suspicion of wrongdoing." of the crime(s) being screened for.

On the other hand checkpoints screening for Drivers License, Tag, Registration are all part of the act of the regulation of driving, they would not be considered an infringement of the 4th under the Supreme Courts latest look at checkpoints.

sf46

May 20, 2008, 14:08

One issue that no one has brought up is roadblocks/checkpoints that are set up when looking for escaped convicts and suspects in manhunts.

I'd like to hear the absolutists describe how those are Constitutional violations and that escaped criminals have made it to home base when they jump into a car with an innocent citizen because that citizen's rights against search & seizure override the necessity to put an escaped thug back in jail .

deerollman

May 20, 2008, 14:20

again you miss the point. it is about the rights of all the non-perps such as you and I. if the perp is suspected of hiding in your neighborhood, should your 4th rights go out the window regarding the privacy of your home?

fwiw, i have no problem with being stopped in the immediate vicinity of an escaped murderer for an LEO to briefly check my face to see if im that guy. i have a problem with the presumption that i MIGHT be drunk, or (gasp!) not have my papers on me.

azrial, i have no idea how my statement of the supreme's ruling conveyed that i advocate a lawless society. law and freedom are indeed in opposition, this is obvious.

dakdak

May 20, 2008, 16:09

Here is a question on jurisdiction and how it may change the picture(s) you are all discussing:

Two or three Spanish and otherwise European companies are buying, trying to buy, or have bought a leasehold on turnpikes and highways in Illinois, California, Texas, and Pennsylvania (the Pennsylvania Turnpike!).

The Penn state legislature includes some very vocal opponnets to this plan in that state and oppose the curent Governor's plan to essentially sell part of the state to foreigners.

When these companies have a leasehold on a tollroad won't they be the ulitimate arbiter of what goes on and what or who is allowed to travel there ?

Doesn't their leasehold make the LEOs that patrol those roads the agents of a foreign entity ?

I am not joking...this is real.

See the link:
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080519_Spanish_firm_offers__12_8_billion_to_leas e_Pa__Turnpike.html?dlbk