Pulled over tonight...

[UncleMike]

No, there was no insult to officers, aside from the one you created in your own mind. Pointing out FACTS is not an insult, it's a look into reality, a look at who you should really fear. And legal gun carriers statistically doesn't make that list.

The insult comes from you, who compare legally licensed gun carriers to terrorists. It is a frigtening insight into the mind of an elitist, one who thinks they are somehow better than their fellow citizens.

Given that cops have been known to abuse citizens, that they have been known to threaten to shoot people merely for lawfully carrying a gun, that one of your brothers on this board has threatened to split open the head of anyone who chose to exercise their fifth amendment rights, I'd have to say we have somewhat more to fear from cops who do not respect the law, from cops who regard legal gun carriers as terrorists, than cops do from us. And the record supports it.

Thankfully Joe, your "opinion" of me is irrelevant to the discussion.
I NEVER used the word terrorist, You imagined that.
I've been called every name in the book during my lifetime and being called an "elitist" is just about the least offensive of those names.
Sorry for the "fail" to insult me.
You'll have to try harder next time.
As for the words and actions of my brother Officers, I have no control over over that. Anything that I say is strictly MY take on the matter and NOT the opinion of anyone else.
Mike

 

[HICKMAN]

lots of pics

Our Photos

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

When I was driving my 100 dollar Neon around which was a great car with virtually no rust on the chassis but it was a god awful purple color, but hell I didn't care 180,000 miles 5 speed 40mpg on the highway..

anyway I had a brake line go out on my way to work on a Saturday once. We were to busy for me to replace it so I had to drive home using the hand brake, thank baby Jesus it worked. Anyway I drove to work in my other car on Sunday and Monday came time to fix the brake line. 105 degree by 10am and I fixed it on an asphalt driveway.

Talk about no fun.

Back on topic now.

I think I just found 67 year old assembly grease coming out of the back of bolt/firing pin mechanism. lol

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[infidel]

Oh heck. Let's not have anyone enforce the law then.

This way, when your neighbor violates your property rights by allowing their dog to defecate on your front lawn, use your 1A rights to threaten the use of your 2A rights upon him and his dog, the next time the offending act occurs.

Some people just can't see the big picture. Let anarchy reign!

I thought you supported the violation of rights though?

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

Oh heck. Let's not have anyone enforce the law then.

This way, when your neighbor violates your property rights by allowing their dog to defecate on your front lawn, use your 1A rights to threaten the use of your 2A rights upon him and his dog, the next time the offending act occurs.

Some people just can't see the big picture. Let anarchy reign!

Anarchy is a plausible solution, however; the American people are not mature nor smart enough to accept it and allow it to work properly.

 

[ATF Consumer]

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

WAT?

 

[LCPer]

Not sure if this belongs here but here it is.

Dear Sir ,

A few months ago, the National Association for Gun Rights first broke this incredible tale out of Shreveport, Louisiana.

At the time, no other gun rights organization had touched the story. But when we tracked down the victim for an interview, we couldn't believe what we heard, and we immediately sent out a nationwide alert.

The story went viral overnight.

If this tale of government abuse moves you, send it to a friend or family member to get the word out.



Welcome to Shreveport: Your rights are now suspended.

According to Cedric Glover, mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, his cops "have a power that [. . .] the President of these Unites States does not have": His cops can take away your rights.

And would you like to guess which rights he has in mind?

Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who got pulled over for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck -- and had his gun confiscated.

While the officer who pulled him over says Baillio failed to use his turn signal, the only questions he had for Baillio concerned guns: Whether he had a gun, where the gun was, and if he was a member of a pro-gun organization.

No requests for a driver's licence, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration -- and no discussion of a turn signal.

Accordingly, Baillio told the officer the truth, which led the police officer to search his car without permission and confiscate his gun.

However, not only does Louisiana law allow residents to drive with loaded weapons in their vehicles, but Mr. Baillio possessed a concealed carry license!

What does such behavior demonstrate, other than transparent political profiling -- going so far as to use the infamous Department of Homeland Security report on "Americans of a rightwing persuasion" as a how-to guidebook, no less?

Mr. Baillio made no secret of his political affiliations: An American flag centers a wide flourish of pro-freedom stickers and decals on his back windshield.

In fact, when Baillio asked the officer if everyone he pulls over gets the same treatment, the officer said no and pointed to the back of his truck.

Baillio phoned Mayor Glover to complain about this "suspension of rights" only to find that his city's morbidly obese "commander in chief" was elated at the story: According to Glover, Baillio got "served well, protected well, and even got a consideration that maybe [he] should not have gotten."

Thankfully, Mr. Baillio recorded a good bit of that phone call. You can watch a video with the transcriptions here. I've reproduced a chunk of the call below:

Baillio: (in the context of being asked about the presence of a gun) Well, I answered that question honestly, and he disarmed me.

Glover: Which would be an appropriate and proper action, sir. The fact that you gave the correct answer -- it simply means that you did what it is you were supposed to have done, and that is to give that weapon to the police officer so he could appropriately place it in a place where it would not be a threat to you, to him, or to anyone in the general public.

[. . .]

Glover: My direction to you is that, had you chosen not to properly identify the fact that you had a weapon and directed that officer to where that weapon was located; had you been taken from the vehicle, and the officer, in the interest of his safety, chose to secure you in a safe position, and then looked, found, and determined that you did, in fact, have a weapon...then, sir, you would have faced additional, [inaudible], and more severe criminal sanctions.

Baillio: So what you're saying is: I give up all my rights to keep and bear arms if I'm stopped by the police: Is that correct?

Glover: Sir, you have no right, when you have been pulled over by a police officer for a potential criminal offense [which would be what?! - DB] to stand there with your weapon at your side in your hand [Baillio's weapon was nowhere near his side or his hand, and Glover knew that. - DB] because of your second amendment rights, sir. That does not mean at that point your second amendment right has been taken away; it means at that particular point in time, it has been suspended.​

Will Grigg from ProLibertate, an excellent freedom blog, has this to say:

According to Glover, a police officer may properly disarm any civilian at any time, and the civilian's duty is to surrender his gun -- willingly, readily, cheerfully, without cavil or question.

From Glover's perspective, it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state's uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself.​

NAGR spoke with Mr. Baillio, and he told us that he's in the process of securing the official procedures and codes for firearm handling and private property confiscation for the Shreveport police department.

So far, the city has been half-heartedly cooperating with him.

"I felt sick," Baillio told NAGR. "My uncles didn't die for this country so I could surrender my rights like a wimp. I felt terrible. I was just thinking of all that my family has done for freedom in this nation -- including dying -- and here they are disarming me at a traffic stop."

What to do?

1. Read Luke's commentary here, and participate in the discussion by leaving a comment.
2. Send this around. This kind of behavior cannot go unchecked.
3. Call Mayor Glover's office to complain: (318) 673-5050.

I'll leave you with one last consideration. As a licensed firearms instructor in charge of a hundred different students every month, I'm often asked if citizens should voluntarily inform police officers of the presence of a firearm during a routine traffic stop.

While different states have different laws, my answer for Colorado citizens is an emphatic "No": Colorado law doesn't require you to volunteer that kind of information, and this case in Louisiana proves why, if at all possible, you should never invite trouble by doing so.

For Liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

P.S. NAGR maintains a gun rights blog that our members use to keep abreast of current gun rights developments.

Whether the news is coming down from Congress, the states, the ATF, Michael Bloomberg, Eric Holder, or even this particular autocratic city official, Luke will keep you ahead of the game and up to speed on the battle for your gun rights.

To visit the blog, click here or point your browser to www.NationalGunRights.org/Blog.

 

[Joe Williams]

Oh heck. Let's not have anyone enforce the law then.

This way, when your neighbor violates your property rights by allowing their dog to defecate on your front lawn, use your 1A rights to threaten the use of your 2A rights upon him and his dog, the next time the offending act occurs.

Some people just can't see the big picture. Let anarchy reign!

Yes. We would like the law enforced, and obeyed. That's the problem here. The officer didn't obey the law. He created law based on what he thinks it should be, but that's not his place. He's supposed to enforce, and obey, the law. The badge isn't a ticket to do anything one wants, ya know. It creates a burden upon the wearer, doesn't relieve him/her of any obligations to the law.

 

[kludge]

O.K., IC 34-28-5-3 covers the right of LEO to stop and hold a person long enough to write him a ticket when a person has committed a crime or infraction. But in this case no law was broken and the officer confiscated a mans weapon. I still don't see the LEO's authority to do so.

IC 34-28-5-3 Detention
Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith
that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the
law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient
to:
(1) inform the person of the allegation;
(2) obtain the person's:
(A) name, address, and date of birth; or
(B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
(3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.

I was a cop for over 20 years, I kinda get it on the difference between "reasonable suspicion" & "probable cause". I just don't see either in this case.

Agreed.

 

[samot]

Yes. We would like the law enforced, and obeyed. That's the problem here. The officer didn't obey the law. He created law based on what he thinks it should be, but that's not his place. He's supposed to enforce, and obey, the law. The badge isn't a ticket to do anything one wants, ya know. It creates a burden upon the wearer, doesn't relieve him/her of any obligations to the law.

+1

 

[kludge]

Only law breakers have anything to fear from honest law enforcement.

That's a slippery slope.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Isn't he a little short for a stormtrooper? Sorry, a little geek humor there.

He looks more like an elf to me.

 

[public servant]

He looks more like an elf to me.

The other guys are 7'5". He's only 6'1".

 

[UncleMike]

The other guys are 7'5". He's only 6'1".

Mike

 

[kludge]

If anyone remembers, the IndyStar did a story not long ago about LTCH holders with violent histories. While I might question the overall integrity of the Star, the specific examples cited of individuals with a history of violence give me pause.

LTCH holder or not, there is a long history of any firearm becoming a potential threat to a police officer. Do I personally approve a cop being a dick? No. Do I understand why he might potentially or questionably step on someone's rights, so that I he can go home that night? Yes.

If someone has an alternative to an LEO temporarily disarming a person's access to firearms, to assure their own safety: Please, I'm listening.

If LEOs don't trust the process, why have the process at all?

How many tens of thousand of names did they have to go through to find the few bad eggs? Perhaps the Star went though ALL 130,000 names (or whatever) comparing them to criminal databases (also public record) to find a few matches. Big deal.

LTCH is as close as you get in this world to a guarantee of officer safety.



This type of thread keeps going on and on... I have changed the way I carry in a car as a result. I have not had a speeding ticket in... about 15 years...

I will not be disarmed while a loaded gun is pointed a my femoral artery (IWB appendix carry). When I posted this the last time in a thread, a cop said "Oh yes you will" (paraphrasing). My safety is just as important as the LEO's. I don't have time in my life for stroking peoples egos so I have changed my mode of car carry to off body. I will not directly answer questions that are "fishing expeditions" and I won't consent to a search. Terry does have limits. And I will invoke my right to silence.

"May I ask why I was pulled over?" will now be my response. It used to be "I have nothing illegal in my car," but apparently a wise crack like that will get my head split open like a canoe.

I don't care if I'm detained on the side of the road for an hour while they call in eight other units and a K9. I'll sit calmly wherever they tell me to, and waste their time. Then I'll file a complaint for harrassment.

 

[Joe Williams]

If anyone remembers, the IndyStar did a story not long ago about LTCH holders with violent histories. While I might question the overall integrity of the Star, the specific examples cited of individuals with a history of violence give me pause.

LTCH holder or not, there is a long history of any firearm becoming a potential threat to a police officer. Do I personally approve a cop being a dick? No. Do I understand why he might potentially or questionably step on someone's rights, so that I he can go home that night? Yes.

If someone has an alternative to an LEO temporarily disarming a person's access to firearms, to assure their own safety: Please, I'm listening.

If we cannot trust the police to conduct a simple background check properly, can we really feel safe when an officer takes our gun, which if it isn't a Glock they are liable to not know a thing about, and starts waving around at us trying to clear it?

Yes, I also understand that some cops may feel it necessary to "step on someone's rights, so that I he can go home that night." Those are the officers that are not fit for the job. It takes courage, and if an officer lacks the courage to accept the risks of doing the job within the bounds of the law, they need a new career.

 

[mrjarrell]

If LEOs don't trust the process, why have the process at all?

How many tens of thousand of names did they have to go through to find the few bad eggs? Perhaps the Star went though ALL 130,000 names (or whatever) comparing them to criminal databases (also public record) to find a few matches. Big deal.

LTCH is as close as you get in this world to a guarantee of officer safety.

How many enforcers have past records? Juvenile or adult? Sure, they're unlikely to be felons, but none of those the Star found were felons either.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Yes, I also understand that some cops may feel it necessary to "step on someone's rights, so that I he can go home that night." Those are the officers that are not fit for the job. It takes courage, and if an officer lacks the courage to accept the risks of doing the job within the bounds of the law, they need a new career.