Seizure of firearms at traffic stop

[MrsGungho]

Feelings just dont matter

now you've hurt mine

I to would be interested to see where specifically it says that police can take a firearm during a stop from someone who has provided his LTCH

 

[Denny347]

This law was brought about to specifically address the Jake Laird Incident some years ago. They created this law because Jake was killed by a man who was mentally ill and we took his guns once but got them back before he went on his neighborhood shootout. The family was involved in this new law. It now allows me to take away all your guns if I Immediate Detention you or family calls saying you are a danger to yourself or someone else...etc etc.. We have a specific court "mental court" that a judge specially trained in dealing with mental illness to determine if the person can get their guns back or not. This law was NEVER intended for anything other than that and I have yet to see a court ruling stating otherwise. Guns being removed on traffic stops WILL continue (not by me) until a court ruling says otherwise.

 

[rw496]

Those of us who state that cops legally can't also tend to quote specific laws and court rulings. Those that say that cops can generally quote themselves and their feelings about what should be right.

You already removed court rulings from the equation in your previous post. Some interpret the specific law often mentioned as meaning a seizure that is not temporary. Some officers cite an articulated "officer safety" issue, which is often a weighty argument in the court's eyes, as well as the fact that the seizure is temporary. In determining custody of a person, the courts have said one of the criteria is that a reasonable person would believe the detention was not temporary. You could possibly extend that logic to the seizure of property..don't know. Regardless, there is obviously not a clearly established law and thus these temporary seizures will continue to occur with impunity until the unlikely event that the courts are presented with the issue of an officer trying to return a temporarily seized firearm and its owner refusing.

 

[rw496]

Guns being removed on traffic stops WILL continue (not by me) until a court ruling says otherwise.

Me either. I just feel like being argumentative.

 

[Denny347]

Me either. I just feel like being argumentative.

Ha...I think what we have here is a discrepancy between the "spirit" and the "letter" of the law. Once again we have a law that should have been better written.

 

[jeremy]

Me either. I just feel like being argumentative.

But when Denny Argues it is all good...
When you Argue is like listening to fingernails being drug down a chalk board...

 

[Denny347]

But when Denny Argues it is all good...
When you Argue is like listening to fingernails being drug down a chalk board...

 

[jeremy]

I am NOT going to Crawl under your Snuggie with you...

 

[Denny347]

I am NOT going to Crawl under your Snuggie with you...

What a killjoy.

 

[jeremy]

What a killjoy.

Sorry, brother. But at least I am not leading you on, you just do nothing for me...

 

[rw496]

But when Denny Argues it is all good...
When you Argue is like listening to fingernails being drug down a chalk board...

Sucks when you're wrong, doesn't it?

 

[jeremy]

There's that chalk board sound again...

 

[jeremy]

Doughnuts!!!

 

[Jack Burton]

You already removed court rulings from the equation in your previous post.

I'm sorry, you must have me confused with a different poster. Or you are confused about my post. Either way, I encourage you to read it again and be more accurate in the way you think I think.

Some interpret the specific law often mentioned as meaning a seizure that is not temporary. Some officers cite an articulated "officer safety" issue, which is often a weighty argument in the court's eyes, as well as the fact that the seizure is temporary.

There is no "temporary seizure" in the law. The fact that citizens have allowed the police to get away with it is immaterial.

In determining custody of a person, the courts have said one of the criteria is that a reasonable person would believe the detention was not temporary. You could possibly extend that logic to the seizure of property..don't know. Regardless, there is obviously not a clearly established law and thus these temporary seizures will continue to occur with impunity until the unlikely event that the courts are presented with the issue of an officer trying to return a temporarily seized firearm and its owner refusing.

"could possibly" doesn't give the police extra special powers.

 

[rw496]

Doughnuts!!!

I hate to reinfore negative stereotypes, but I do love doughnuts!

 

[No Lot Lizards]

Cops can do whatever they want. This is Amerika

 

[MikeDVB]

Similar, but what if they put it in your trunk and that you have to leave it there? Or they unloaded it and they say you are free to go but not to load it?

Would getting it out of the trunk or loading the weapon actually violate a law? I.e. would the cop's order be backed up by a law?

 

[Denny347]

Cops can do whatever they want. This is Amerika

It's good to be me.

 

[MrsGungho]

It's good to be me.

matter of opinion

not working today or didn't stop at the gas station with the other guys? didn't see you this morning

 

[Denny347]

I'm sorry, you must have me confused with a different poster. Or you are confused about my post. Either way, I encourage you to read it again and be more accurate in the way you think I think.



There is no "temporary seizure" in the law. The fact that citizens have allowed the police to get away with it is immaterial.



"could possibly" doesn't give the police extra special powers.

Like I said above, here we have a discrepancy between "spirit" and "letter" of the law. How do I know? I was around when they developed this law and trained on it's usage. The law should have been written better but I can assure you that traffic stops NEVER entered their minds when developing the verbiage. They were thinking of the mentally unstable or ill. Could this law AS worded apply to traffic stops? Maybe, it was never intended to do so. Either new wording or court ruling will be the only way to clarify. The fight between "letter" and "spirit" cuts both ways. People here yelling at us to follow the letter of this law will make a 180 degree turn for another law they disagree with and yell at us to follow the spirit of the law. In the end, it is difficult for us to please everyone. But hey, it's the internet.