Traffic stop/you're CCW-legal & cop wants your gun ....

[labgrade]

DMK,

Thank you.

I think you're the only person who actually addressed the question as asked - ever.

Having once been "a cop," frankly I don't have an answer either & the whole reason for asking it.

Unless I put the "alleged perp" up against the car & in "the position," (having "utmost control over same") & drawing the "weapon" myself, well then, I'm an idiot no? & the "alleged perp" can just shoot me to his heart's content.

No?

Really, DMK, Thanks.

I have yet to see even that level of "I dunno" or "I'm screwed!" response - until yours.

Kinda blows my mind to actually & finally get anything close to an answer.

Still, I see no logic whatsoever in it (the "hand it over!") occuring.

If I can hand it over to the LEO, I can most certainly shoot him.

AND ... as a s spin-off ...

Eamonn Wright's
"How am I contradicting myself by stating the FACT that in my state there is a law against carrying an unlicensed firearm, and also that I support the 2nd Amendment? "

That is just so totally unbelieveably A-F'ing-Hoo!

& yer a cop, huh?

How Perfect!

You did once swear to uphold the (previously capitalised) constitution?

Isn't there something in there that says "shall not be infringed?"

Yeah, thought so. & your next argument might be ... ?

Really, EW.

Welcome to The Place Where Previous Beliefs Are Shot Down & Your Education Begins .....

We like to call it The High Road.

 

[Matthew Courtney]

Eamonn Wright,

You Need To Check Your Facts. There is no provision in Louisiana to license a firearm. I could not license a pistol with a golden engraved invitation from the governor. There are also no requirements what so ever that I so do. I may conceal a firearm on my person in my vehicle, home, or place of business. I may carry a concealed weapon on the property of any entity which gives me such permission.

I was in the committee room lobbying the legislature and handing out campaign contributions when these laws were last revised. Don't you dare presume to refer me to some "reliable" website to become educated.

 

[bronco61]

Eamonn Wright,
You have every Right to scream "fire" in a movie theater. You are also responsible for anybody injured because of your action.

Just like you have every right to carry a firearm. You are responsible for anybody injured because of your actions with the firearm.

So no, you're not a supporter of the 1st Amendment...either

 

[Wildalaska]

Eamon Wright..

Until the Supreme Court of the United States rules on the breadth, meaning and scope of the Second Amendment, your reasonable actions in enforcing the present and still constitutional laws of your jusrisdiction are appreciated.

Thanks for being a dedicated officer and providing us with your input. Please note that some of the most strident defenders of the Second Amendment are the ones who not only have an incorrect understanding of the law, but in additon, lack the courage of their own convictions in opposing what they construe as unconstitutional.

 

[TheOtherOne]

I told my friend that does volunteer work for the sheriff department about how the cop that pulled me over had me hand him my gun from the glovebox. He was really surprised and said first of all that he wouldn't have asked for it to begin with, but if he felt the need for some reason to disarm me that he sure as hell wouldn't of had me hand it to him, but instead would of had me get out of the car and taken me back to his car and then went and got the gun himself.


Oh, and on the other subject that splintered off in this thread: I don't understand why everyone is bashing on Eamonn Wright so much? I think it sucks that cops have to uphold these laws that violate the 2nd Amendment, but at the same time he has a point about all of us being hypocrits. After all it's our 2nd Amendment right to have guns, so we should just do it without the permits... but we still jump through the hoops and get the permits anyways.

 

[Powderman]

O-kay, folks! Let's all bash the cop who chooses to uphold the law!!

Hey, he may NOT agree with the law! Hot flash, to some!

I, for instance, do NOT agree with the law as annotated in the Revised Code of Washington that states that full-auto is illegal and declared contraband.

But you know what?

I swore an oath to enforce it--and I will!!

If you don't like a law, then do something about it. The tools to do so are the petition, referendum, and the recall.

Or, better yet, get off your duffs and vote for people who believe like you do.

But, with all due respect, don't you DARE sit at your computers and slam us because we choose to follow the law, and to uphold it.

Oh, and back to the original topic:

If I do a traffic stop and I think that the person MIGHT not be right--just something that doesn't look right or feel right--or even if I stop a pedestrian, and I have a reasonable suspicion that a crime might have been committed, is about to be committed, or is being committed, you can BET your bank account that you WILL be asked to step from the vehicle, and I WILL relieve you of your firearm until things can be sorted out. (Note: see "Terry" Stop)

Likewise, if you are a CCW bearer, and I inform you that until the traffic stop is over I am going to relieve you of your legally carried firearm, if you tell me NO, then guess what? You WILL be relieved of your firearm, at least on a temporary basis. If you want to make a scene of it, fine. Be prepared to be proned out, placed in cuffs, and put in the back of my car while we figure out what is happening.

Does that make me a traffic nazi? If so, so be it.
Does that make me a JBT? If you think so, oh well.

My only concern is to make sure that I get home safe that night; and that YOU get home safe too--which will be a LOT easier and quicker if you just tell me that you're carrying and show me your CCW.

Folks, we have a hard job. But, we're on the same side, okay? Let's not lynch each other.

 

[jato]

Archie,

Jato, if you had probable cause for a stop based on specific information regarding a crime, you wouldn't treat it the same as a regular traffic stop, would you? And you wouldn't diddle about asking about permits, would you?

I am not sure what you're getting at Are you referring to conducting a high risk stop as opposed to a low risk (routine) stop? Usually the only time a high risk stop is conducted is if there is reasonable suspicion that the occupants are felons.

If I have reasonable suspicion that the occupants are involved in infraction or misdemeanor activity (%95+ of my stops), it would be a routine type stop. If I came across a hand gun being carried (during concent/4th/parole search, incident to arrest, or during invintory of vehicle before stored/impound), I would ask for a permit, then go from there. Otherwise, I have the "don't ask don't tell policy" on my most of my stops.

I want citizens to be armed.

Did I answer your question?

 

[Eamonn Wright]

Powderman
Thanks for the support, I'm getting hammered here! This is the 1st time in my life anyone's ever bashed me for being too far left. I have to admit I was a little stunned at first, but I guess some would accuse Attilla the Hun of being a lefty (just trying to make a point....not asking for the Hun's political beliefs).
I appreciate most viewpoints here. I do know where you're coming from, believe it or not. I still would like to know how are we to stop the armed criminals; muggers, murderers, home invaders, rapists, etc. without violating their 2nd Amendment rights? I know how most here plan against such events, but some people don't want or like guns. They hope and expect their police to at least make an attempt to get the bad guys before they are victimized. It seems some here say we should do nothing until there are victims, and only then try to pick up the pieces of someones shattered life and figure out who did it. I know the argument that the police are under no obligation to protect the citizens, but some of us try like hell. Okay, you expect your families to protect themselves during the robbery at the Quickie Mart. I don't expect my grandmother will be able to, so if I can, I'll try to get the nitwit before that crime can be comitted. Many here don't like to hear this because I've taken his gun and locked him up, but I feel better about removing vermin from the street.
Matthew Courtney,
take a deep breath and relax. You live there, I don't. However, Packing.org is a well thought of reference for firearms laws. If they are wrong, don't scream at me, let them know. You'll also be helping out a lot of people here who may use that website.
Bronco,
I can yell fire in the crowded theater, and I will be responsible for any injuries. I will also be locked up for disorderly conduct.

 

[bronco61]

But, with all due respect, don't you DARE sit at your computers and slam us because we choose to follow the law, and to uphold it.

Wow! Well, sorry, but I will dare to point out the contradiction when people (citizens) uphold laws which they themselves admit to disagreeing with or feel are unconstitutional - while at the same time, stating that they are "supporters" of the Amendments being stomped on. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.

By the way Powderman, most of us on here have been doing something about it. Exactly the same things you listed in fact. Many of us also ignore unjust laws or practice civil disobedience, as these laws may cause us more harm than good. If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside to imprison us, that's your option. Just don't expect the rest of us to pat you on the back and tell you how wonderful you are.

The conversation we were having with Eamonn Wright started because I pointed out his contradiction when he actively participates in and enforces gun control and then immediately turns to the same people and tells them he's an ardent 2nd Amendment supporter. It was not meant to be a "Cop Bashing". In fact, Eamonn and myself had agreed to disagree and were finished with our debate.

If you don't want to read debates Powderman, you may want to stick to posts made by "Theebadone". He likes to post 5-6 threads in the "Legal Political" section in a day which are nothing more than Poems about LEO's. I think you'll love them.

 

[bronco61]

I still would like to know how are we to stop the armed criminals; muggers, murderers, home invaders, rapists, etc. without violating their 2nd Amendment rights?

Excellent question Eamonn. Exactly one of the reason's why we're all here in the first place! Maybe we can discuss this? I know I have some thoughts on this.

I know how most here plan against such events, but some people don't want or like guns.

That's their opinion and option not to carry one. The rest of us don't get to have our lives shattered by imprisonment and a felony conviction because we don't dislike guns and our Constitution supports us.

It seems some here say we should do nothing until there are victims, and only then try to pick up the pieces of someones shattered life and figure out who did it.

Not at all. The police don't have the ability of picking up the pieces of anyone's shattered life. They have some success at trying to figure out who did it, and if we wanted nothing done until there are victims, we wouldn't be asking for an armed society capable of protecting itself against predators.

I don't expect my grandmother will be able to protect herself

Unfortunately, our news media ignores all the MANY instances where citizens help/protect others. But, when you take away their ability to do so (as in disarming them), then these same "helpers" no longer care about helping, but their own survival/escape from the situation near them. That is when only cops have the ability to help. Well, you can't be everywhere at all times. You'd also have to trample the 2nd, 4th, 9th, 10th Amendments trying to find people who could be preparing to cause harm to others. (wait, that's already happening )

When you see 4 airliners full of people taken over by someone with a boxcutter, you see what happens when people have been rendered incapable of protecting themselves Eamonn.

I can yell fire in the crowded theater, and I will be responsible for any injuries. I will also be locked up for disorderly conduct.

Exactly. My point is that you don't check people at the entrance to the theater for their "ability" to yell the word FIRE in the theater or for their "Posession" of the word without a license. You've confused "Action" with "Posession/ability".

 

[Powderman]

Ignore an unjust law? Your and my decision to make.

I will be the first to admit that I do not arrest for absolutely every little infraction that is committed. If that were the case, I would be arresting myself, over and over.

Practice civil disobedience?

Again, a decision to make. Personally, I don't believe that it is bad enough yet to do it. At this point, the only thing you will accomplish, IMHO, is to give yourself a criminal record and to look like a dunce. Yes, there IS a limit, of course. There IS a point where any reasonable man would say, "Enough, and no further." However, I think that our cause is still salvageable without such action. How?

Step 1. Formulate a plan.

Decide that there is a law that you want to be on the books--or one that you want to repeal--or someone who is a complete dunderhead that needs to be sent home to play in the sandbox.

Step 2. Draw up the proposed law.

In other words, create the dumbfounding legalese that all attorneys are fond of.

Step 3. Collect signatures.

This is the hard part.

You, and volunteers, will have to hit the bricks. You will have a two-fold job; this is the first part.

Collect enough signatures to put it on the ballot. In Washington State, that means (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong) about 250,000 signatures. This will ensure that it is in place on the next general election.

Step 4. Vote.

This is the second part of the job. You MUST convince the same people who put down their signatures to go and vote--and to get their friends and fencesitters to vote too.

This is what the politicians are scared to death of--that enough citizens will get tired of their BS and vote them right the heck out of their cushy little desk jobs that pay hideous amounts of money.

And guess what? IT WORKS!!!!!

Do a search on Washington State, and Tim Eyman. You'll be surprised and what can happen to State law when ordinary folks get their dander up.

Also, do a search on Initiative 626, also here in Washington. This initiative, which would have severely curtailed the right to keep and bear arms in this State (and, which I might add, was being hailed even before passage by the HCI/Sarah Brady/MMM types) was whacked down. This initiative was spanked so hard it disappeared totally, and nothing even close has been proposed since. IIRC, it was said to be the largest defeat a proposed piece of legislation has ever suffered in this State, defeated by something like an 85% vote.

So, instead of BREAKING the law, let's MAKE the law. Hey, this is the United States of America--the only country in the world where we CAN do that.

 

[bronco61]

Again, a decision to make. Personally, I don't believe that it is bad enough yet to do it. At this point, the only thing you will accomplish, IMHO, is to give yourself a criminal record and to look like a dunce.

I moved from California as a way of escaping gun laws I couldn't live with. I'm done moving. As far as "looking like a dunce" - so? The only people I'd look like a dunce to, are the one's who already think I'm a dunce for wanting to be armed.

I (and many others) do feel that it is bad enough now. We all have our limits which differ from person to person. What is your limit?

Your steps for making new laws which are in our favor are good one's. Unfortunately, it seems a bit odd to try to make new laws which overturn laws which ignore our ultimate laws (The Constitution) which we have in the first place. We have a guide to follow already.

What if "they" made a law which nobody followed or enforced? I honestly feel sorry if a lot of threads on this board look like cop bashing. Unfortunately, by your active participation in gun control and other unconstitutional laws, you become part of the enemy.

As you stated: We all have to make decisions. I chose not to become a LEO because of my convictions, Labgrade stopped being a LEO because of he held his convictions over a job.

Just something to think about but not to try to offend you: If you look back in history at what governments have done to people which were unjust; How do you feel about the people who enforced these wrongs imposed on people?

 

[Powderman]

The aim would not to make laws on top of other laws, but to remove laws that are on the books that are contrary to the Second Amendment. (Hey--that includes almost ALL of them!! How about that? )

For example, let's say that enough of us gun owners got together, and said, "Hey!! Enough of this GCA'68 and NFA and Assault Weapons Ban garbage. Out with the trash!" and drew up a referendum to repeal all of them in their entirety.

Let's then say that enough gun owners signed the thing. Think about it. Even if 3/4 of the estimated gun owners signed, that would be over 60 million signatures. Oooh, the possibilities!!

What do you say? What could we accomplish if 60 million gun owners nominated our own candidates and voted for them en masse?

 

[Rotorhead]

Labgrade,

"Larimer County for a fact requires that you notify upon contact." Thanks for the heads up. I had no idea. My county doesn't require it, how am I supposed to know Larimer county code? Another stupid question while we are on the subjuct. What about people who choose "legally I was told by local LEO" to carry conceled in the car without permit. (Something to do with the car being an extension of your home?)

Eamonn Wright, bronco61, Powderman, Thanks for your posts I always get such an education hanging around here and the old TFL

edit (spelling)

 

[spacemanspiff]

i think its up to the individual to research laws of any area they are in. 'ignorance' is never a justifiable defense.

 

[labgrade]

Okay.

Being an ex-cop, I can see the desires of all LEO-types to go home at the end of the day. I want to do that too.

Too, I might have a cop disarm me, after jumping through all the hoops to prove that I'm already good guy. Assumption being that everyone you come across is not? That seems quite contrary to all tenents of the constitution & bill of rights.

That whole assumption is that I am against the wall/in the position & already under a duress situation that none of my deameanor caused. I type much more vociferous than any of my words ever caused.

Imagine the consternation here, good LEO-folk. Best case = you have just created an enemy where there wasn't one one minute before. Tell y'all what. Being "thrown up against a vehicle" isn't conducive to a later-day friendy LEO-friendly experience.

You & me should be on the exact same side. We both believe in the sancrosancts of the BORs, 2nd Amend, yada -

Don't we?

This same basis of my "goodness" also comes from your own same "basis of goodness," right? Aren't we both "blessed" from that "higher authority" that gives license to & has checked us all to be "good" in the eyes of the law?

That your authority, coming from the same source, that just allowed me to carry "freely" to still take away my gun, makes me just want to shudder.

Just as a basic of comparision, didn't your authority come from that same place?

And, to bring it back to the initial question posited.

If you ask me to give you my gun, how is it that I just won't shoot you?

We keep drifting here towards a philosophy & not one of tactics.

Please answer that question first, & then we can drift off to mere philosophicals, huh? Maybe a whole 'nother thread - feel free, but I'd really just like to address my initial premise. Please. It's been well over 3 years.

Wildalaska posits a:

"Until the Supreme Court of the United States rules on the breadth, meaning and scope of the Second Amendment, your reasonable actions in enforcing the present and still constitutional laws of your jusrisdiction are appreciated.

Thanks for being a dedicated officer and providing us with your input. Please note that some of the most strident defenders of the Second Amendment are the ones who not only have an incorrect understanding of the law, but in additon, lack the courage of their own convictions in opposing what they construe as unconstitutional."

I would counter with a clear reading of the Miller Decison.

Of course you've read it & concur since it's binding, being a ruling set forth by the SCOTUS?

Right?

Then, of course, you'd already know your position to be in opposition to your own statement.

Let's please be consistant here.

My reading of Miller is that I cannot be in possession of any weapon not conducive to the effectivenes of the militia. I'd like to think many of your own posts have reflectived that same = we are allowed all weapons to protect & defend this country, from all enemies - foreign and domestic.

As a quick aside, how is it that I, who have allowed the guv'mint to do a colon-xscope of my entire past-life & I have come up clean & being presented with their own "Stamp Of Approval" could be a "bad guy?"

If they've done their search completely enough, I am certainlt well-qualified enough to be at the least, as good as any they'd consider "A Cop."

& still, I may very well be considered "a threat," merely because "I possess."

I cannot condone & I will, at every breath of me puke at disgust those who will not recognize that I too have already proven, (as if that would ever be necessary)

I very much await your own "ruling" to support your stated premise.

Powderman,

"But you know what?

I swore an oath to enforce it--and I will!! "

Did you?

I bet you swore an oath to defend the constitution - not any laws that may, or may not be contrary to same.

"Likewise, if you are a CCW bearer, and I inform you that until the traffic stop is over I am going to relieve you of your legally carried firearm, if you tell me NO, then guess what? You WILL be relieved of your firearm, at least on a temporary basis. If you want to make a scene of it, fine. Be prepared to be proned out, placed in cuffs, and put in the back of my car while we figure out what is happening."

Or, as an unlawful & willing violator of rights, how 'bout I just shoot you COM for attempting to illegally violating my civil rights?

So much for all of us being in the same ball-park, no? & you getting to go home safely.

I betcha I could get a lawyer to dig up some of your previously archived TFL posts where you staunchly uphold your beliefs regards the 2nd & bill of rights. You are assumedly aware of at least some of these facts.

And, willingly being aware, wouldn't you be in complete violation thereof AND that of civil rights violations as well?

Contiplate that at your leisure.

Want to enforce unconstitutional laws? regardless of how the rulings have gone - wanna start a whole new thread whether or not you can legally deprive me of my 2nd right to posessess firearms without due process AND above & beyond, I have already proven myself to be crime-free for 50+ years, gone through the process, yada, etc. to the point of throwing up & still some of you will want to violate me for your own self-perceived belief that you are not a servant of us!?

And how that "civil servant" stutus does rankle, no?

You are, like it or not, our civil servants.

Says so in our contract with you who chose to sign it.

You are subserviant to our laws & have no choice but to abide by that, your written contract, to us, and our constitution.

That you would choose to use a "court of law" that does bastardize it will not releive you from your word & sworn oath.

So much for honor, oath & your own word regards the constitution. Guess you'll blithley go about what it is you think you shall, to observe that which you will - regardsless.

So be it & that's what you'll ed up with. Well met! Sirs & slaves.

But,

back to the question posited.

If I choose to hand you a weapon, why wouldn't I just shoot you?

Have a nice day.

 

[Wildalaska]

Labgrade..

Your understanding of the Miller decision is erroneus.

Rather than continue this tiresome debate, may I suggest that you make an M16 rifle (clearly a militia weapon). Then announce to the press that you have one and will carry same at such and such a date in such a such a place to demonstrate your rights. Do it peaceably, and argue later in Court that you have aright to bear your militia weapon and that the NFA is unconstitional based on the 2nd ammendment.

If you win, more power to all of us. Until you do so, however, may I suggest that you preface your erroneus legal theories with the famous IMHO...

Furthermore:

"Likewise, if you are a CCW bearer, and I inform you that until the traffic stop is over I am going to relieve you of your legally carried firearm, if you tell me NO, then guess what? You WILL be relieved of your firearm, at least on a temporary basis. If you want to make a scene of it, fine. Be prepared to be proned out, placed in cuffs, and put in the back of my car while we figure out what is happening."

Bravo to this officer...I would add that IMHO, the person who says "No" should be forever deprived of a license to carry.

And finally:

Or, as an unlawful & willing violator of rights, how 'bout I just shoot you COM for attempting to illegally violating my civil rights?

IMHO, an attitude such as this demonstrates why the antis classify gun owners as the "lunatic fringe"..

 

[Powderman]

labgrade--

Come on, now. I do NOT agree with all of the laws I am sworn to uphold. But that is my--and your--privilege, living in and being a part of the United States of America.

As far as swearing in, you bet I did--both as a cop, and also at the beginning of each new enlistment while serving in the Army. I took the oath there 4 times. I feel that I am still bound by it.

Yes, I believe that there are egregious breaches of our civil rights. I believe that these could be remedied, and addressed without the need to go directly from soap box to cartridge box.

Can you tell me why it seems that the only way some folks know how to address these questions about our rights is with deadly force? Why threaten?

You say, "Why don't I just shoot you COM?" Indeed, why not? That would make a great, shining example, would it not?

Think about it.

But, know this well, my friend--if you do exercise this option, you will not be seen as a citizen. You will not be remembered as a patriot.

You will not be known as a person who stood foursquare behind their Constitutional rights.

The only thing you'll be known as is a cop killer.

You say that you spent time as an LEO. How can you say, or even hint that you would kill a cop?

In closing, let me say this, fella--just in case you don't remember--

We who wear the badge--men and women of all ages, races creeds and colors--usually do not whimper or plead when our time comes.

We die hard.

Please do us all a favor--for the sake of those who know you, for your family, your friends, and in honor of the badge you once wore--don't attempt to carry out that scenario. In this case, there are no winners.

Good day, and God be with you.

 

[labgrade]

Quickly,

I'll just say that there are enough of those who will say that the constitution says what it says & the bill of rights does too.

Period.

Didn't nessecarily say that I would kill a cop, only that I might - you may force me to - in the enforcement of my own rights & that of my family.

It's your choice. Frankly you get to choose whether or not you will uphold unlawful laws or not. & by your choice, you will get to decide whether or not you get to go home to your family that evening, & possibly that your family is even there to come home to - it will be war war, eventually, no?

I[/] get to decide. Don't I? & that's everytime you try to enforce some stupid law that you swore to uphold?

Don't take it to seriously. Not like I'd try ro kill you every time you stop me for every traffic vioaltion. It may be only every 1 out of 10 ....



There are those who have made a list of those who will, or will not, enforce the laws of the (emphatically capitalized) Constitution.

It is written down in a couple places & I'd behoove you to think about that before you start spouting off how much an LEO you are & what the constitution means to you.

You have decided not to live within the framework of the Bill of Rights, having sworn to uphold same, have caused a pretty good schism.

Frankly, wasn't me = I was already on the side on the Constitution.

& you?

I din't choose it, I'm not part of it, but you will get to play a goodly part of it - as you see fit. I would choose the side of The Constitution if I was you. You, & your family's life really does depend upon it.

Might be a good idea to read it - at least once.

Seriously, there's some way beyond my own thoughts that think you're a nut-case & will kill you because of those views.

& I'm a way moderate ..... & really only tell you what's coming down the pike.

I din't make it it & I din't do anything but try to tell you what's coming.

There's those that will kill you, with zero mercy, & likey kill your own family as part of a [I[jihad[/I], if you will, just because you have chosen not be part of what this country was founded on.

Wildalaska,

I never wanted to go make an M16. Frankly, I can do just as much with a scoped .308 bolt-gun as I've already legally played with with any full-auto anything. Please do give me the Most Pure Militia Weapon = A scoped, bolt rifle, or really, anything single action in the hnads of any who would care to preserve their freedoms.

How 'bout the Butterknife Brigade!?

& really, if I wanted to make anything "illegal" & use it? What could The Guv really do to stop me?

Powderman, in his:

"Come on, now. I do NOT agree with all of the laws I am sworn to uphold. But that is my--and your--privilege, living in and being a part of the United States of America.

As far as swearing in, you bet I did--both as a cop, and also at the beginning of each new enlistment while serving in the Army. I took the oath there 4 times. I feel that I am still bound by it.

Yes, I believe that there are egregious breaches of our civil rights. I believe that these could be remedied, and addressed without the need to go directly from soap box to cartridge box. Come on, now. I do NOT agree with all of the laws I am sworn to uphold. But that is my--and your--privilege, living in and being a part of the United States of America.

As far as swearing in, you bet I did--both as a cop, and also at the beginning of each new enlistment while serving in the Army. I took the oath there 4 times. I feel that I am still bound by it.

Yes, I believe that there are egregious breaches of our civil rights. I believe that these could be remedied, and addressed without the need to go directly from soap box to cartridge box."

Already knows, but just hasn't made the leap ....

 

[labgrade]

written as a proxy -

I cannot take full credit - - as if.

all I can say on that one ...

 

[Eamonn Wright]

WOW. Labgrade, you say you're a former LEO? After reading you post about " how about I just shoot you COM for attempting to violate my civil rights.", I find it hard to believe. An LEO asking you if he can hold onto your gun for the duration of a traffic stop...hmmm, sounds like a justifiable deadly force situation to me. I'm sure a jury would see it that way. If they didn't, so what, you were a MAN and you stood up to the jack booted thugs. By the way, I haven't heard anyone say they have any automatic weapons. Shouldn't you, if you're serious about what you claim to be?

Powderman, I've always wondered, if the taxpayers pay my salary, and I pay taxes, does that mean I'm self employed?

 

[nygunguy]

Just wondering

Why does everyone get stopped so much? Maybe its just dumb luck but I haven't been pulled over in 10 years.

On the other hand I'd better figure out what I'm going to do if I do get pulled over.

 

[Powderman]

"Didn't nessecarily say that I would kill a cop, only that I might - you may force me to - in the enforcement of my own rights & that of my family. "

O-kay.Here we go about killing cops again. Why?


"There are those who have made a list of those who will, or will not, enforce the laws of the (emphatically capitalized) Constitution. "

"It is written down in a couple places & I'd behoove you to think about that before you start spouting off how much an LEO you are & what the constitution means to you. "

"You have decided not to live within the framework of the Bill of Rights, having sworn to uphold same, have caused a pretty good schism."

Let's see--so I choose a profession that I enjoy, and I deserve to die for it, right? I'm really understanding now. And, not living within the framework of the Bill of Rights? I guess that's why I served 15 years in the service of this Nation. I guess, too, that's why my son is currently a Marine on active duty. I guess that's why I met my wife on a missile site in Korea, where she was on active duty. None of us believe in living within the framework of the Constitution, I guess.

"There's those that will kill you, with zero mercy, & likey kill your own family as part of a [I[jihad[/I], if you will, just because you have chosen not be part of what this country was founded on. "

Me AND my family? O-kay.

I guess you think that this makes you a patriot, huh?

We have a term for people who think like this.

It's called terrorist.

Bring it on, Osama.

 

[Wildalaska]

I never wanted to go make an M16. Frankly, I can do just as much with a scoped .308 bolt-gun as I've already legally played with with any full-auto anything. Please do give me the Most Pure Militia Weapon = A scoped, bolt rifle, or really, anything single action in the hnads of any who would care to preserve their freedoms.

With the utmost respect, not only do you misintepret the Constitution, you even misinterpret my post.

I quite frankly am tired of seeing the same lunatic litany over and over about what the 2nd Amenedment says. I say to you, and to each of you who spout the same tired nonsense: If you believe that you have the right to keep and bear any small arms whatsoever without any restriction whatsoever because of the 2nd Amendment then show that you have the courage of your convictions: Get an M16 and walk down the street with it, and then CHALLENGE the law in court. Heck, Al Sharpton, the clown of NY, has the courage to get arrested for what he believes in. He is not a coward...where do you stand..

Didn't nessecarily say that I would kill a cop, only that I might - you may force me to - in the enforcement of my own rights & that of my family. It's your choice. Frankly you get to choose whether or not you will uphold unlawful laws or not. & by your choice, you will get to decide whether or not you get to go home to your family that evening, & possibly that your family is even there to come home to - it will be war war, eventually, no?

Sir I guess because the moderators havent stepped in here that they are enforcing their rule regarding free speech. On the other hand, free speech, despite what the ignorant may think, does not give you the right to cry Fire in a crowded theatre. Nor does it give you the right to threaten anyone, express or implied. As far as I am concerned sir, your words would justify your being banned from this Board. Thats not in my power. On the other hand, at least I can say, IMHO, that your words are disgraceful and bring shame upon all responsible firearms owners.

 

[Matt G]

Closed under Rule 5:

5.) We cannot provide a comprehensive list of "Things Not To Say".Posts that are contrary to the above policies, or to the mission of The High Road, may be edited or deleted at our sole discretion. Membership may be revoked if such a step is deemed necessary by us. We're a private venture enabled by an all-volunteer staff. Please treat this venue as a polite discussion in a friend's home and respect the wishes of the hosts.

When the talk moves to implications that one sect of our Membership would shoot another sect, I'm willing to fade the heat for shutting this thread down. I think there were definitely some simple miscommunications being manifested within a discussion in which the priniples disagreed in the first place.