Posted on 07/28/2010 6:23:51 PM PDT by School of Rational Thought
As the ‘right to carry’ spreads across the United States, many law enforcement agencies and police officers express their unease — and for some, outright alarm — at the idea of citizens carrying concealed weapons.
......
Law abiding citizens do not expect to be treated like a felon — nor should they be. They will be angry if you prone them out, spread eagle them against a wall, or take their firearm from them without just cause. Good point to remember: A little thought and common sense goes a long way here.
(Excerpt) Read more at policeone.com ...
I think that it is pretty clear that the university is prohibiting the carry under statute. Even if you reside there, you can not carry it because it is not an exemption listed that people who reside on campus can carry.
Your 5-A defense ..
The conveyance is a conveyance for people who are carrying not weapons so it is not covered.
You are confusing the letter of the law i am afraid. When they talk about it they are exempting the people who are riding in private vehicles.
They should say what they mean then.
I have worked with thousands of cops and the entire time I only knew of ONE who thought that people should not have firearms.
I have pulled over many people who have carried and as long as they told me that they had a weapon everything worked out fine. They had given me no reason to fear them. It was the ones who had hidden one in the glove or tried to hide one fast under the seat that had problems.
Best advice. If you are stopped, keep your hands on the steering wheel. If at night, turn on your interior light and keep your hands on the wheel. You can explain that a PO told you to do this so no one would get nervous.
Then tell them that you have a permit CCW - and have a weapon (tell them where) .. no surprises. Just be polite and calm and they will be too.
Put yourselves in their position, they are pulling over someone that they do not know, you could be a real great person or running from a murder. They have no way of knowing. Just be FRiendly and calm.
are you talking about one specific part or the whole legalese thing of the entire statute?
Well, that one part in particular.
But the reason “legalese” is the way it is supposedly is to reduce miscommunication... though I think that nowadays it’s going more towards obfuscation.
It is, which is why shady lawyers get people off on technicalities.
I think we should cut it back down to the basics
Thou shall not steal
Thou shall not kill
well you get the idea ...
I opened the glove box to retrieve a legal document which she was required to provide, and from a place where she said it would be. She had made an initial movement to open the glove box, consistent with her statement. If I had charged her with a crime, a search issue might have been raised, but I doubt that it would have been upheld.
Fact pattern:
1. Vehicle stop.
2. Request for registration.
3. Lady indicates it is in the glove box.
4. Officer opens glove box, and finds loaded pistol.
5. Officer didn't make an arrest.
6. Officer didn't confiscate the pistol.
From your first post:
“Years ago I stopped a woman for an equipment violation. I had asked her for her registration and she said it was in the glove box. She reached for it and I told her I would look for it. I asked her if she had a gun in the car and she said no. I opened the glove box and there was a loaded pistol in it.”
You stated that you told her you would get it then asked if she had a gun. That’s a search. What was your PC to ask to search her glove compartment? Was the order of events out of order in your first post?
I didn’t ask her to search the glove box. I told her I was going to look for the registration, and I asked her if there was a gun in the glove box. There is no incongruity, and you are straining at gnats here. Now will you answer the scenario about what a lawsuit would be worth?
“I didn’t ask her to search the glove box. I told her I was going to look for the registration”
How is that not a search? You didn’t state your PC for the search despite 2 requests. Was she free to refuse to allow you to go into her glove compartment?
Since when can you simply tell someone you are going to go into their glove compartment and get their registration. Do you think it’s OK to violate people’s 4th amendment rights as long as its’ not a major violation? You apparently consider people’s rights a “gnat.”
The section 1987 lawsuit would have been worth legal fees, a monetary reward and establishing the legal precident that your department has no reard for basic search and seizure rules which could be used in future court actions.
She was free to refuse me to look in her glove box. I would have opened it anyway.
"Since when can you simply tell someone you are going to go into their glove compartment and get their registration."
It was always my discretion depending upon the circumstances.
You're opinion is that a lawsuit would have been successful. My opinion is that there would have been no damages awarded.
But I will give you another situation and see what you do with it.
One evening, I and other officers were working a high crime area. I made a vehicle stop with my PC for the stop being either an equipment violation or a registration violation. I talked with the driver and I asked him if he had any contraband in the vehicle. He said he didn't. I asked him for permission to search the vehicle, and he refused. I and the other officers made no attempt at this point to search the vehicle. Then we were informed that he did not have a valid drivers license.
What happened next Mr. Dayman?
Indeed:
UNITED STATES CODE; U.S. Criminal Code; Civil Rights Act
Title 18, § 241. Conspiracy against rights:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Yes, and you can do so in a number of third world tyrannies that do not live under the rule of law. Show me a country in Africa where the ordinary citizen can buy that AK for $50 legally, and I might consider living there.
The key is the rule of law, which I believe you understand. Is it very difficult to obtain a permit to carry a pistol in Austria? I understood that the Austrian Constitution guarantees each head of household the right to own a pistol.
Former Army here. Though I don’t have any kills whatsoever I won’t insult your sense of honor (or morality) by saying that “it was ok because he was a combatant and you were in a war-zone.” There’s enough questionability on the morality of the US using its military as a world police-force that ‘doing your duty’ is of questionable significance.
I will however say that on the personal-moral level it was a case of self defense: he was trying to kill you. Your God-given right to life is either worthy of defending or not; I believe it is, even to the point of lethal violence.
I know that this is of little comfort, at best, but I hope that it is *some* comfort.
Understandable.
I’m glad that my ‘answer’ was helpful.
It seems that what’s got you “tweaked” is the underlying injustice, not of the situation itself but of the causes-of-the-situation; that is, in my opinion, a good trait: doctors may have to treat symptoms at times but they realize that treating the *cause* is what is required to make one well again.
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.