Posted on 06/30/2009 2:31:11 PM PDT by FromLori
Welcome 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 Unites States does not have": His cops can take away your rights.
And would you like to guess which rights he has in mind?
Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who got 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 the NRA. 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 resident 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: An American flag centers a wide flourish of 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 morbidly obese "commander in chief" was elated at the story: According to Glover, Baillio got "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. You can watch a video with the transcriptions here. 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.
NAGR spoke with Mr. Baillio, and he told us that he's in the process of securing the official procedures and codes for firearm handling and private property confiscation for the Shreveport police department.
So far, the city has been half-heartedly cooperating with him.
"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."
What to do?
Read Luke's commentary here, and participate in the discussion by leaving a comment. Send this around. This kind of behavior cannot go unchecked. Call Mayor Glover's office to complain: (318) 673-5050.
I'll leave you with one last consideration. As a licensed firearms instructor in charge of a hundred different students every month, I'm often asked if citizens should voluntarily inform police officers of the presence of a firearm during a routine traffic stop. While different states have different laws, my answer for Colorado citizens is an emphatic "No": Colorado law doesn't require you to volunteer that kind of information, and this case in Louisiana proves why, if at all possible, you should never invite trouble by doing so.
In liberty,
Dudley Brown Executive Director National Association for Gun Rights
Now, how does THAT match up with THESE federal laws? http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000241——000-.html
and
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000242——000-.html
Think about this...
This mayor is an idiot. Listen to this:
http://www.conservativedrink.com/media/GloverInterview-060809-Video.asp
Sue tbe pricks.
GEEZ WIZ, WHAT A PILE OF CRAP
bttt
Sounds like Shreveport is about to get sued for civil rights violations.
So, all rights have been suspended in your craphole town?
By WHAT authority?
Then I guess that means all LAW has also been suspended too, huh?
Be careful what you ask for...you just might get it.
42 USC Sec. 1983 gives individuals the right to sue public officials who violate their constitutional rights. And, if provides punitive damages and attorney fees to do it. I say go for it.
Is this Richard Head an elected official? Sounds like they need to vote him out.
>Then I guess that means all LAW has also been suspended too, huh?
If all law is suspended, then the authority of a ‘Law Enforcement Officer’ is null and void as there is no law to enforce. Furthermore, any attempt to exert pressures/force in such a situation on his part instantly becomes the act of a private citizen against another; and YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF.
If there is no law, then it is open season on anyone and everyone... with a special place reserved in hell for governmental idiots like this guy.
He should call the ACLU!
I believe he is white so they would not help him.
Looks like this guy was driving under the influence of the right to bear arms. Before long there will be road blocks set up to catch more people under the influence of the right to bear arms.
Exactly the cop said it was because of his NRA stickers. The audio is really interesting you almost cannot believe your ears when you hear that mayor!
If we were still a nation under the rule of law, this clod could be facing hard federal time. Lucky for him, Obama and his new AG have brought Chicago to DC.
Visit the aclu web site on gun control before you say what you did. The aclu defends gun control.
That statement was so outrageous I didn’t think I needed a /SARC tag.
You didn’t I just thought the comment was appropriate lol
Woops my bad. At one time they did defend it. The aclu has changed.
So was yours! LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.