New Mexico Supreme Court Rules "Officer Safety" Supercedes Rights

[azmjs]

Police controlling people that they detain is not a new idea or practice.

Policemen already have the power to control people that they stop, extending that control to guns is not a difference in kind from the power they already traditionally possess.

As far as DUI checkpoints go, it is up to the courts to decide to what extent they are allowable, and also to what extent they are similar to more traditional traffic stops.

The specific statistics on traffic-stop shootings aren't relevant, since the aim is to reduce them from whatever levels they already are.

Even a marginal decrease is worthwhile, because there is nothing valuable given up in exchange.

 

[Deanimator]

The specific statistics on traffic-stop shootings aren't relevant, since the aim is to reduce them from whatever levels they already are.

Even a marginal decrease is worthwhile, because there is nothing valuable given up in exchange.

And if somebody thought that preventing people from carrying would reduce it, that would be a GOOD thing, RIGHT?

 

[kis2]

Well sir we will have to agree to disagree on a few points I think

Thank you for taking the time to explain your views on it though

 

[Deanimator]

It's worth remembering that a year or so ago a pharmacist shot a policeman over a traffic stop. If I remember right, he had a ccw.

Dangerousness isn't a measure of someone's intentions, it is a measure of his capabilities.

It's also worth remembering that a few years ago, Atlanta police murdered Kathryn Johnston, an innocent woman, and planted drugs in her home to try to justify the killing.

Dangerousness isn't a measure of someone's intentions, it is a measure of his capabilities.

Maybe we should be able to disarm the police during an encounter...

 

[Deanimator]

Yet we do not kill the policemen by running them over with our cars when we feel that they've stopped us on a "pretext."

Why should shooting them to death with our guns be considered any different?

A traffic stop already suspends many of our most basic rights. The only justification for having a gun at hand during a traffic stop is to shoot the policeman who has stopped you, as a poster above pointed out with his "how do you know you're safe from the cop" comment.

One of the beautiful things about the Presumption of Innocence is that it allows us to give the police the benefit of the doubt when it comes to traffic stops and arrests, because we in turn receive the benefit of the doubt later, in the stage of justice that really matters.

This is all a red herring the size of Mt. Rushmore.

The topic was being disarmed during a traffic stop.

An easily refuted statement was made that people aren't stopped unless they're doing something wrong.

I pointed out that disarming motorists was being justified on the basis of a demonstrable falsehood.

In response, you post a nonsequitur about killing cops.

Then you contradict yourself talking about the "presumption of innocence" regarding a cop who may very well have NO lawful reason to stop you while presuming malice on the part of the person being stopped.

It's a diversion, but a singularly ineffective one.

 

[Deanimator]

kis2, until you can develop some kind of test, perhaps a device that scans peoples brains, to determine whether or not someone is going to use his car or his gun to harm a police officer, then we have no choice but to measure the danger a person poses by his capability to do harm, not his intentions. His intentions are otherwise always unknown to us.

While you're at it, develop the SAME device for the citizen to use when dealing with the police. I have no more assurance that any random cop isn't up to no good than I have regarding any random citizen. There are terabytes of video and audio to prove it too.

If you don't believe me, ask Kathryn Johnston. You know how to hold a seance, don't you?

 

[azmjs]

And if somebody thought that preventing people from carrying would reduce it, that would be a GOOD thing, RIGHT?

I would have thought the part of my post you quoted which stipulates that nothing important is given up in return would have assessed this. What gives?

 

[azmjs]

It's also worth remembering that a few years ago, Atlanta police murdered Kathryn Johnston, an innocent woman, and planted drugs in her home to try to justify the killing.

Dangerousness isn't a measure of someone's intentions, it is a measure of his capabilities.

Maybe we should be able to disarm the police during an encounter...

You aren't the first to advance the argument that motorists should be able to keep weapons at the ready in case they decide to kill the police.

I don't think you guys stand much of a chance of prevailing with this line of reasoning.

 

[Deanimator]

You aren't the first to advance the argument that motorists should be able to keep weapons at the ready in case they decide to kill the police.

I don't think you guys stand much of a chance of prevailing with this line of reasoning.

You aren't the first to try that sort of rhetorical slight of hand. It didn't work for the others either.

You used a demonstrable falsehood to justify disarming motorists, then when you were caught, you tried to change the subject by INVENTING a motivation for the person who caught you.

This fairy story that everybody who doesn't believe whatever the police CLAIM they're doing wants to KILL the police is the sort of dissimulation for which anti-gunners are well known, ie. "if you want to carry a gun to defend yourself, you're looking for an opportunity to kill somebody over a parking space". My "line of reasoning" is MY line of reasoning, NOT one you make up out of whole cloth.

Sorry, I've had people try that nonsense who were MUCH better at it than you.

 

[junk250]

I like this Ky law, to me it reads,... no right to disarm unless a gun crime is committed.

I wont consent, or otherwise give up a legally carried weapon unless against my consent, cooperate yes, consent no.

KRS 237.104 states,

237.104 Rights to acquire, carry, and use deadly weapons not to be impaired during disaster or emergency -- Seizure of deadly weapons during disaster or emergency prohibited -- Application of section.
(1) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time, have the right to revoke, suspend, limit the use of, or otherwise impair the validity of the right of any person to purchase, transfer, loan, own, possess, carry, or use a firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition component, or any deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
(2) No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time, take, seize, confiscate, or impound a firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition component, or any deadly weapon or dangerous instrument from any person.
(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the taking of an item specified in subsection (1) or (2) of this section from a person who is:
(a) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to KRS 527.040;
(b) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to federal law;
(c) Violating KRS 527.020;
(d) In possession of a stolen firearm;
(e) Using a firearm in the commission of a separate criminal offense; or
(f) Using a firearm or other weapon in the commission of an offense under KRS Chapter 150.
Effective: July 12, 2006
History: Created 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 240, sec. 7, effective July 12,

 

[mr.scott]

I find it odd that people on this site seem to be ok with their rights being taken away during a police stop. Rights are just that. They can not be taken away. For instance, your Forth Amendment rights. I'm sure none of you want those taken away because it would make a cops job easier.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Taking guns away from people at traffic stops is INFRINGING on your 2nd Amendment Rights.
But go ahead and fall for the typical leftists motto, it's ok to suspend rights if it's for the greater good of someone else. If you have that mind set then you don't believe in rights. You believe in government granted permission.

 

[Geckgo]

so what is the point here. When can the police disarm you, is it only after they say, "you're under arrest"? Or maybe, only if you are caught commiting a felony? Or is any lawbreaking enough to justify the temporary suspension of your "rights". If you've committed a crime, you give them a leg up in the court system to do whatever they deem necessary. Whether or not they will stand trial for it later is another issue.

 

[JerryM]

mr.scott, I don't see that I have lost any rights. If I was not going to use the gun I have no need to have it available to me. I have broken the law, and the officer has no idea who I am. If he sees my gun he is welcome to take it until he checks me out.

I guess what often surprises me is the number of folks who think the 2A is without limit. I don't think that an officer securing my gun during a traffic stop and then returning it to me when done is any infringement on my 2A rights.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[Deanimator]

I guess what often surprises me is the number of folks who think the 2A is without limit.

I guess what often surprises me (but not that much anymore) is the number of folks who think that there's no 4th or 5th Amendment, and that the police don't need to respect them regardless.

What's almost as surprising is the inclination of some to assert that EVERY anonymous LEO should be trusted absolutely, paired with an equal inclination to ascribe the most evil of motivations to those citizens with credentials to carry a firearm.

 

[Art Eatman]

This thread has wandered well away from the OP...