Your Rights Are Suspended

Status
Not open for further replies.

St8LineGunsmith

Member.
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
424
Location
In Teh Garage (Rossville, GA USA)
did any one else get this E mail
this is the kind of garbage that really makes me sickWelcome 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 United States does not have."

Mayor Glover claimed his police officers had the power to take away certain rights.

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

Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who was 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 -- he proudly displayed an American flag and other 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 "commander in chief" was elated to hear about the story.



According to Glover, Baillio was "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. 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.

"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."

I know this kind of harassment occurs frequently all across the country. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has on many occasions warned law enforcement officials to "look out for" folks like Mr. Baillio who have bumper stickers that promote ideas such as "liberty."

There is danger in the Congress, as well. Right now there is active legislation that seeks to label gun owners like you and me as "terrorists."



http://paracom.paramountcommunicati...8ba510025d8b9c4a04095f9c7cf83ee2&ei=saWAG48AN
 
Last edited:
I'd sure want to see some more unbiased reporting on this before I took the word of an organization that nobody's ever heard of before.
 
So did the cop keep the gun or return it at the end of the stop? Did He get his gun back? And why did he not go to an Lawyer? Not enough of this story....
 
I can assure you that in all 50 states, police officers have the legal authority to take possesion of firearms during a traffic stop. If they feel they have reason to believe the gun is on your person or in your vehicle, it may well be the first thing they do, before asking for a license or explaining why you were pulled over. Arguing with them about your 2A rights will NOT help you persuade them that you are not armed and belligerent. I strongly suspect the originator of this email is willfully misstating the case and/ or withholding pertinent information to set the recipeint in a panicky/ bellicose frame of mind, preparatory to a solicitation for money.
And yes, I get these all the time, along with similar crud from ron paul and friends... usually it goes straight to my garbage, but occasionally one slips past my filters and I have the momentary annoyance of deleting by hand.
 
I got one as well.

And 12131 - they aren't unsolicited. You had to sign up somewhere to get them. I just don't remember where or when.

These people are no different than the NRA, as far as I can tell. Every contact they both have their hands out
 
I find the NRA to be overrated
I can tell you this much about the NRA.
I have been a member since 1962.

And if it weren't for them through those 50 years?

Neither you nor I would be on a gun board in the United States tonight making foolish statements like these.

Because there would be no guns, gun owners, or gun boards about them in the United States to make statements on now!

rc
 
"and it seems to me GOA simply DOES more significant stuff. "

But in fact they have accomplished very, very little, even for such a small organization. They claim 300,000 members on their web site.
 
I can tell you this much about the NRA.
I have been a member since 1962.

And if it weren't for them through those 50 years?

Neither you nor I would be on a gun board in the United States tonight making foolish statements like these.

Because there would be no guns, gun owners, or gun boards about them in the United States to make statements on now!

rc

Once again rc gets it right.
 
Warp I find the NRA to be overrated, and it seems to me GOA simply DOES more significant stuff.

The NRA isn't overrated by Congress, state legislators, the media or anti gun groups. Funny, but GOA is never mentioned by any of those.


GOA is a joke, as is NAGR. Their supposed "no compromise" mantra? It's doublespeak for "we have no $$$ to use for actual lobbying of lawmakers or campaign contributions to candidates favorable to the Second Amendment".

In short, they exist for their own benefit.
 
I can assure you that in all 50 states, police officers have the legal authority to take possesion of firearms during a traffic stop.

You can't assure me - In which state? - not in mine or many others! They must have a reason other than you having a gun in your car. No need to even disclose unless asked and then they still can't confiscate, just ask you where it is.

In the United States, a Terry stop is a brief detention of a person by police[1] on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[2] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity;[3] the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect’s outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be “armed and dangerous”.[4] When a search for weapons is authorized, the procedure is known as a “stop and frisk”.

To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.[5] Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”,[6] and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.[7]
 
Last edited:
Lots of folks have had their guns taken during traffic stops and later returned.

Dudley Brown also runs Rocky Mountain Gunowners. Dudley forgot to file with the IRS and RMGO lost its tax exempt status in May, 2011. Dudley's excuse: He lost his computer.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20934409/colorado-gun-group-fails-file-irs-could-be

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the state's most strident gun-rights group , lost its tax-exempt status last year after failing to file with the IRS for three straight years.

But the group, known for its hard-ball politics, as of Friday was still claiming to be a tax-exempt nonprofit on its web site, although the IRS revoked its status in May 2011.

In addition, the Colorado secretary of state this May suspended the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners' registration as a "charitable organization" for failure to file timely reports. Nonprofits that solicit funds must be registered with the secretary of state under Colorado law. Failure to do so is a misdemeanor, secretary of state spokeman Andrew Cole said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top