Law Student Backs Down Cop After Being Unlawfully Stopped For Carrying A Gun

[handgun]

The carrying of a gun, particularly in states that don't require a permit for carry, or your method of carry should be equally protected, since 2A is a constitutional right, and not the "privilege" that we're always told that driving is.

That said, I don't ever envision SCOTUS ruling this way, bowing to the pressure of the "officer safety" bunch.

Driving should not be a privilege it is a right as far as i am concerned. I pay taxs, and commerce is not to be infringed upon. And the only privilege is buying and owning such of one can afford a car great. Regardless if it is a yugo or a rolls royce.. if you own one you should be allowed to drive one any public road. After all you domt have to have a liscense to drive a buggy down the street, a bicycle, a moped, a horse, or a golf cart do you? Nope... what makes a car or truck any different??

 

[Kutnupe14]

Driving should not be a privilege it is a right as far as i am concerned. I pay taxs, and commerce is not to be infringed upon. And the only privilege is buying and owning such of one can afford a car great. Regardless if it is a yugo or a rolls royce.. if you own one you should be allowed to drive one any public road. After all you domt have to have a liscense to drive a buggy down the street, a bicycle, a moped, a horse, or a golf cart do you? Nope... what makes a car or truck any different??

It IS a right, and this exactly the point the Federalists were trying to make to the Anti-Federalists during the drafting of the Bill of Rights. The BoRs basically made a hierarchy of rights, with those listed as being the most "important" (ie being most relevant of the time). The Federalist feared, that by doing so, other "rights" would eventually not be considered "rights" at all, and able to be infringed upon....


....and they were right. Look at how many people who think that their "rights" are solely those that are listed in the BoR.

 

[iChokePeople]

Honestly, I'm not sure. They could likely take the weapon for "officer safety" and after that, there wouldn't be a lot you could do other than taking them to court and making them prove that they felt you were dangerous (i.e. needed to be disarmed).

Speculating here, so don't take it as legal advice.

That about sums it up. No, given that this is a simple traffic stop and there's no weirdness involved, you absolutely do not have to give him/her your gun to run the numbers. But, as you said, the officer could take it, and once he has it, there's really nothing you could do to stop it at that point. File a complaint, absolutely. Protest (*verbally*) the seizure? Definitely. Make him return it in accordance with IC 35-47-14? Hmm. Well, in theory, yes, but I don't think that one's really been tested. Anything further than that should probably be started off with, "Don't tase me, bro!"

 

[MikeDVB]

Honestly, I don't personally care if they take the firearm and want to run the numbers, I know I'm good as I bought it personally from an FFL... But the biggest issue I have with them taking my weapon is trying to make it "safe" and in the process likely pointing the firearm at me in the process and then them telling me not to re-load the weapon until I got home or telling me to leave it in my trunk, etc.

As far as I am concerned, once I am free to go and they tell me as such, I can and will reload my weapon and put it back on my hip although I wouldn't be so brazen to literally do it right in front of them while they stood there - I'd probably do it in the vehicle with it pointed in a safe direction before pulling away. If they took my weapon from me, they're already going to be nervous about it so pulling it out to reload it would likely, at the least, get their attention in a fashion that I wouldn't be too happy about.

Now that would lead me to a curious question... Should they take your weapon against your will in the name of "officer safety" and you were to have an AD while reloading the weapon, could one not bring a case against the officer/department? I mean the way I see it - had they not unloaded my weapon, I wouldn't have had to reload it resulting in the AD. Maybe I'm going a bit too far, who knows.

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

Another point you Could use: (assuming you have already shown the LTCH)

Officer, by removing my firearm from its holster you are greatly increasing the possibility of injury to you, me or someone else. If you choose to disarm and handle my firearm and remove it from my person, I will not accept it back, and will expect to receive a property receipt for my property which has been illegally taken. I will then ask for a written explanation from your superiors as to why my property was taken without Reasonable Articulated Suspicion and when no probable cause exists that a felony has, is or is about to be committed...

They don't want to deal with that either....

 

[MikeDVB]

I would never do that much talking. Beyond all of that, unless you really did want to sue - all you would be doing is putting yourself through a lot of work that is doubtful (imho) to change the practices of the officers.

 

[mk2ja]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiq2tVUkGM&feature=related


full vid

BOOM! AWESOME!!

 

[Ted]

....and they were right. Look at how many people who think that their "rights" are solely those that are listed in the BoR.

Now, now. You can't expect people to read the 9th amendment.