Tenn. Trooper Steals Guns During Stop

[lashicoN]

"Tenn. Trooper Steals Guns During Stop"

Misleading Title. The officer gave receipts for the the items confiscated. This is not stealing. Agree or disagree with the Trooper's interpretation of the law, his intent wasn't to steal the guns. Such misrepresentation is a fine example Yellow Journalism.

It wasn't stolen? He should just go get them back then. No big deal, if they weren't stolen, then what is the problem here?

 

[Bill of Rights]

926A is an affirmative defense. Here's the case law. There's a bunch more out there.

Docket Nos. 08-1768-cv, 08-1895-cv. - TORRACO v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY NJ NJ II - US 2nd Circuit
- PEOPLE v. SELYUKOV - NY Justice Court
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/092029p.pdf

You can't just read a paragraph out of a lawbook and decide what it means. It doesn't work that way.

Sea lawyers think they understand what they read and attempt to opine on it to the detriment of someone who listens to what they have to say because it sounded authoritative. In reality the law is nothing unless you apply the case law to it.

The trooper's not the one who should receive remedial education on the text, meaning, and import of 926A, IMHO.

OK, in an airport, yes, you can prove your destination but not your origin. Even so, the one gentleman was originally asked but not ultimately expected to prove his lawful ownership of the firearm. Another, if I read it correctly, made a side trip but the final analysis seemed to disregard that in terms of his travel.

Obviously, as I've said, I've not been to law school. Your claim that the law is nothing without the application of case law is interesting, though; Am I reading that correctly to mean that the words and opinions of the legislators who wrote the law are essentially meaningless other than in a case of first impression, that after that, the prior court's opinion(s) means more than the actual text of the law itself?

As I read it, you're saying that if I travel to, say, Missouri, where I can lawfully carry, from here in Indiana, where I hold a Lifetime LTCH, any LEO with whom I come into contact can require that I show somehow my origin and destination, the fact that the firearm is locked in a place not immediately accessible to me, and that I also prove my lawful ownership of that firearm... Um.. I don't have the receipt anymore and even if I did, I'm not in the habit of keeping it in my pocket so that it's with me any time some Illinois tin-star demands it. (Note please that I don't use that term in derogatory fashion against all LEOs, nor even against all IL LEOs but solely directed toward the hypothetical IL LEO referenced here as insisting on this level of proof.) The whole thing strikes me as having to prove my innocence rather than the agent of government having to prove my guilt. While "innocent until proven guilty" is a concept for the courtroom rather than the roadside, it seems to fly in the face of justice that an agent of government, a LEO, can be acting within his authority to treat someone like a criminal solely because he happens to be away from home and not have documentation that he had no reason to believe would be demanded.

In the case of the driver enroute from VA to CO, how would he prove that the law does not forbid an act? How indeed, do you prove something (in this case, a law requiring permission to purchase a firearm) does not exist? More specifically, how do you prove it at roadside where an extensive search of multiple states' statutes is not feasible?
More importantly, how does the average citizen have any reason to believe that having read 926A, specifically referencing the text "Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof..." doesn't mean that the federal law is not the controlling one? WHY should they have to know that?

I realize that it's pointless to ask why when it comes to the law... it doesn't have to make sense, it's just the way it is. I find that very frustrating.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

OK, in an airport, yes, you can prove your destination but not your origin. Even so, the one gentleman was originally asked but not ultimately expected to prove his lawful ownership of the firearm. Another, if I read it correctly, made a side trip but the final analysis seemed to disregard that in terms of his travel.

Obviously, as I've said, I've not been to law school. Your claim that the law is nothing without the application of case law is interesting, though; Am I reading that correctly to mean that the words and opinions of the legislators who wrote the law are essentially meaningless other than in a case of first impression, that after that, the prior court's opinion(s) means more than the actual text of the law itself?

What I meant was that reading a snippet of a law does not give the whole picture of how the law will be applied. What other laws may conflict? What definitions are applied? How are terms in the law interpreted? How has the law been interpreted in precedential cases? In what circuits? What was the intent of the law?

As I read it, you're saying that if I travel to, say, Missouri, where I can lawfully carry, from here in Indiana, where I hold a Lifetime LTCH, any LEO with whom I come into contact can require that I show somehow my origin and destination, the fact that the firearm is locked in a place not immediately accessible to me, and that I also prove my lawful ownership of that firearm... Um.. I don't have the receipt anymore and even if I did, I'm not in the habit of keeping it in my pocket so that it's with me any time some Illinois tin-star demands it. (Note please that I don't use that term in derogatory fashion against all LEOs, nor even against all IL LEOs but solely directed toward the hypothetical IL LEO referenced here as insisting on this level of proof.) The whole thing strikes me as having to prove my innocence rather than the agent of government having to prove my guilt. While "innocent until proven guilty" is a concept for the courtroom rather than the roadside, it seems to fly in the face of justice that an agent of government, a LEO, can be acting within his authority to treat someone like a criminal solely because he happens to be away from home and not have documentation that he had no reason to believe would be demanded.

Cops on the street are not lawyers nor are they concerned with the nuances of the law. They see what they in good faith believe is a violation, and they decide what to do about that violation. It's not up to the LEO to determine if a case should or will be brought. The results of their investigation is turned over to a prosecutor who decides if charges will be brought or not. It's not up to the LEO to determine guilt. The judge and jury does that.

926A is an affirmative defense. It simply provides that if you meet all the conditions contained in that section, you may transport a weapon across state lines regardless of any state or local laws to the contrary. Once you assert the protection, it is up to you to prove that you meet all the tests and qualify for the immuities provided. It's a lowered evidence standard, but yes you have to assert and prove you qualify for the protection. If you can't prove it than you aren't entitled to its protection.

In the case of the driver enroute from VA to CO, how would he prove that the law does not forbid an act? How indeed, do you prove something (in this case, a law requiring permission to purchase a firearm) does not exist? More specifically, how do you prove it at roadside where an extensive search of multiple states' statutes is not feasible?

First, he makes sure that he has followed the law in every way. Second he doesn't advertise that he has a gun. Third, he understands that he doesn't prove anything at the roadside. He can say this is the situation, but it is up to officer discretion as to how events will unfold. Remember, good faith belief. Not absolute proof. Fourth, he doesn't take it personally.

More importantly, how does the average citizen have any reason to believe that having read 926A, specifically referencing the text "Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof..." doesn't mean that the federal law is not the controlling one? WHY should they have to know that?

If the average citizen wants to understand the law and its application, they should take some law classes. They offer them at several colleges around the state.

I realize that it's pointless to ask why when it comes to the law... it doesn't have to make sense, it's just the way it is. I find that very frustrating.



Blessings,
Bill

Again, I am all for a world where all proper persons can carry any gun in any manner they choose. But that's not the world we live in (yet).

 

[cosermann]

IMO, these kinds of threads would be more useful if the final outcome was shared rather than the initial claims. (Like we've had court rulings shared from time to time.)

Then we can think about and discuss things having a more complete picture of the facts as they played out in court, etc.

Otherwise, it all just ends up being a bunch of hypothetical philosophizing.

 

[mrjarrell]

Well, there's finally an update on the matter at hand. The gentleman's firearms were returned and the bogus charges dropped. Guess if he'd actually been guilty of anything they'd still have his firearms and he'd be in jail or out significant sums of money due to fines.

“That guy does not need to have guns” – more info on TN gun confiscation incident Restore The Constitution

 

[vitamink]

i just re read the original and it seems longer now with additional information. I would still like to see the officers report as well as his now dropped charges.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Bill and SFUSMC, from a quick reading of TN law. IANAL but it seems he wasn't committing a crime in TN.

39-17-1308. Defenses to unlawful possession or carrying of a weapon. —
(a) It is a defense to the application of § 39-17-1307 if the possession or carrying was:
(1) Of an unloaded rifle, shotgun or handgun not concealed on or about the person and the ammunition for the weapon was not in the immediate vicinity of the person or weapon;

And for the legal definition of immediate vicinity and unloaded in TN

(7) “Immediate vicinity” refers to the area within the person's immediate control within which the person has ready access to the ammunition;

(18) “Unloaded” means the rifle, shotgun or handgun does not have ammunition in the chamber, cylinder, clip or magazine, and no clip or magazine is in the immediate vicinity of the weapon.

Legal Resources

If they were in the trunk and there were no loaded magazines with them. It is legal to transport them without a permit in TN.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill and SFUSMC, from a quick reading of TN law. IANAL but it seems he wasn't committing a crime in TN.

And for the legal definition of immediate vicinity and unloaded in TN

Legal Resources

If they were in the trunk and there were no loaded magazines with them. It is legal to transport them without a permit in TN.

That law was the one I quoted, I thought, though the section I referenced was the new one about carry in a vehicle. Thanks for backchecking me, though. I appreciate independent verification

FYI: I edited your post to show SFUSMC's corrected initials.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Timjoebillybob]

That law was the one I quoted, I thought, though the section I referenced was the new one about carry in a vehicle. Thanks for backchecking me, though. I appreciate independent verification

FYI: I edited your post to show SFUSMC's corrected initials.

Blessings,
Bill

Sorry I must of missed your post on that. But glad to provide verification.

And thanks for fixing my post, I didn't realize I misspelled it.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Because I see Mrj as no different than the evening news. He has an agenda and all his post has the same anti authority/cop slant.

He doesnt take an active roll in INGO,just the political part of it. Hes no different to me than someone that uses INGO for the classifieds. Sure, they are in the community but they are not part of the community.

DING DING DING

Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner.

63 of his last 120 post are political.

I don't mind seeing members posting items of political nature, but it seems we have more than our share of users who like to use INGO as a Political sounding board and at times I just get plain tired of seeing it, especially when someone writes up the thread description to sque it to a particular way.

"Tennessee State Trooper confiscates legally transported firearms"
Should have been the way this thread was labeled, and not anti LEO slanted the way it was.

See how easy that was, gets an point across with out an anti slant.

 

[j706]

DING DING DING

Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner.

63 of his last 120 post are political.

I don't mind seeing members posting items of political nature, but it seems we have more than our share of users who like to use INGO as a Political sounding board and at times I just get plain tired of seeing it, especially when someone writes up the thread description to sque it to a particular way.

"Tennessee State Trooper confiscates legally transported firearms"
Should have been the way this thread was labeled, and not anti LEO slanted the way it was.

See how easy that was, gets an point across with out an anti slant.

Yea what he said!!!

 

[varasha]

If you take something from someone illegally it is called stealing...So i believe the title is correct.

I also believe most cops i know would never try and "steal" my guns. Heck, most cops are content to just look at all my cool toys and talk about the ones they got at home.

I have way more positive encounters with LEOs then negatives. As long as you stay calm and polite, you will get the same treatment back.

 

[vitamink]

To be more specific it's conversion not theft. I agree with the rest though.

 

[rambone]

DING DING DING

Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner.

63 of his last 120 post are political.

I don't mind seeing members posting items of political nature, but it seems we have more than our share of users who like to use INGO as a Political sounding board and at times I just get plain tired of seeing it, especially when someone writes up the thread description to sque it to a particular way.

"Tennessee State Trooper confiscates legally transported firearms"
Should have been the way this thread was labeled, and not anti LEO slanted the way it was.

See how easy that was, gets an point across with out an anti slant.

Probably 110 of 120 of my last posts were political. Big deal. I can only discuss which side of my butt cheek I wear my holster for so long. Politics stays current and different on a daily basis. This thread is totally relevant to the forum and to any of us who care about our rights.

If we ignore grievous affronts to liberty, and go to lengths to make excuses for the perpetrators, and criticize those who bring these issues to light... Well, your agenda shines through pretty clearly too.