Not only should we be careful in what we wish for, but we should be ever so diligent when drafting pro gun legislation. One of the greatest evils against the Bill of Rights is legislation that doesn't pass the constitutional test. This can happen even when the legislators have the best of intentions.
In many cases you can blame the NRA and their goal to always see a win, even when it's a big step backwards. Similarly I have spoken with legislators that believe if the NRA is OK with it, it must be good. There is also the other camp that says the NRA is one of the largest gun control advocates in the country, and I tend to agree.
Let's review Alaska-carry and the infringement on a citizen to inform a police officer that you have a firearm and how you must allow the officer to disarm you for their safety. Maybe that sounds good on the surface but does it pass the constitutional test? Absolutely not!
Alaska police officers regularly disarm law abiding citizens, taking their firearms and running the serial numbers through the system. This in itself is a violation of the “fourth amendment”. No surprise here, officers that have taken an oath to uphold the constitution are regularly breaking this same oath.
Many law abiding citizens that have nothing to hide often see no harm in giving up their rights. They freely give in to a police officers intrusions.
What's the big deal, you have nothing to hide, right?
Before you read anymore please watch the video. You will be shocked at what you witness.
A harmless traffic stop ending with a citizen being subjected to an illegal search and seizure, even worst absolutely no assurances that his firearms haven't been entered into a registration scheme. NCIC or National Crime Information Center by its own admission is a computerized index of criminal justice information and is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. Most alarming once your firearms serial number makes it into NCIC, it's there forever.
NCIC checks and The Patriot Act combined with the recently passed Real I.D. legislation in Wyoming, means that "inform and disarm" legislation would only further connect the web of government control over the citizens. We must say no to any legislation in Wyoming that allows law enforcement to handle you and your firearms as if you were a criminal before proving as such. Remember the fourth and fifth amendments were not written for criminals! They are there for law abiding citizens like you and me.
Join me in saying - enough is enough, the Second Amendment is my right to carry!
To be notified of new articles - use the subscribe link at the top of the page.
Read my other articles at Cheyenne State Rights Examiner
.gif)
Comments
Great article, Anthony. Every time I think I know it all, someone like you opens my eyes wider. The incredible thing to me in the video is the idea that BOTH the officer AND the citizen seemed to have that the law enforcement officer had a right to know about the firearms, and then had the right to confiscate them, and then had the right to de facto register them, almost as if the guns and the right to own and carry them REALLY belonged to the state and the state's officer. Then, out of the goodness of his heart, the officer, who has just made an illegal search, seizure, and registration of the weapons returns them to the citizen very graciously!! What a guy! Incredible. This in a state that is supposed to be gun friendly. How far ARE we from Nazi Germany?
Incredible says: ...as if the guns and the right to own and carry them REALLY belonged to the state... This is the heart of it.
I am going to play devil's advocate here. A ticket situation is a highly emotionally situation where people do not always say the best things, behave reasoably based on their normal behavior, and often act out of the ordinary. It might be better not to compound the issue by both sides carrying loaded weapons during that stop. An officer has to put himself in as safe a position as possible and the officer would not be doing his job if a weapon is stolen and he did not check it out. Do all cops behave in a proper manner? The answer is no and we see it every day when one of them busted on the television news. But that is the fault of the men who screened them to become cops just as it is the fault of citizens who do not recall legislators who pass bad laws. Look at hte man who killed four cops in Washignton. It was not the gun's fault but the fault of every person who signed his release each time he went to jail and set this up. they had evidence of his mental problems and did nothing.
Boston T. Party says to keep your gun in an open briefcase, and if stopped, close and lock the case. The officer is only legally entitled to be concerned about items that might pose some immediate threat to his safety in addition to whatever he stopped you for. He obviously can have no fear for his safety from an item in a locked briefcase.
"It might be better not to compound the issue by both sides carrying loaded weapons during that stop. An officer has to put himself in as safe a position as possible and the officer would not be doing his job if a weapon is stolen and he did not check it out."
So the potential for the situation to get out of control is adequate reason to disarm me but not my paid servant? Also, if he has the right to ensure his own safety, and needs a loaded weapon to do so, why does that right and need not apply with even greater force to me?
Let me play Devil's advocate to Robert's Devil. Here in Florida we have NO requirement to tell a police officer that a loaded firearm is in the car or on our person unless he specifically asks if we have a CWP and are carrying. So far in 20 years we have had NO, repeat NO incidents of CWP holders getting ticked off and shooting police during a traffic stop. The argument is a TOTAL red herring. Just like the dire warnings of 'Wild West shootouts and blood running in the streets' if we let the people have firearms. Anyone wanting to make that argument, SHOW ME THE FACTS, and you can't because there AREN'T any.
I'm totally turned on by the idea that a ruthless hit man or armed robber will voluntarily inform a cop that he's packin' even though he knows the officer will immediately take possession of the heat and run it through the data base. AND, the law-abiding golden boy will NOT tell the cop that he's packin' and as soon as the officer's attention wanders will pop one right in center of mass. There's just a whole lot to recommend the term "probable cause."
Robert says an officer wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't run any weapons found to see if they're stolen, IOW not having anything to do with his own safety but just good general policing. Well, OK, if that's the case, then why doesn't Robert recommend running everything in the vehicle with a serial number? His cell phone? Digital camera? Any of that stuff could be stolen too. Why are we so concerned about ID'ing guns which might be stolen, in the absence of any evidence, just because they're guns, but if any of that other stuff is stolen, that's hunky dory?
I have demanded that a cop disarm or leave and made it stick. It was for citizen safety and also, they would be violating the law to get on or in a commercial motor vehicle where all firearms not manifested as cargo were disallowed and the law makes no exception for police officers.
They didn't like it, but I didn't care.
Maybe a compromise would be a law that requires the officer not do a serial number search and return the gun immediately after the stop unless he can show probable cause of it being stolen, and in that case requiring the officer return to the station and write a report. Cops dislike writing reports.
"Maybe a compromise would be a law that requires the officer not do a serial number search and return the gun immediately after the stop unless he can show probable cause of it being stolen, and in that case requiring the officer return to the station and write a report. Cops dislike writing reports."
That would be an improvement but still assumes the officer's safety is somehow more important that that of a person belonging to the group he's pledged to SERVE and PROTECT.
If he's "serving" how are his rights greater than theirs, his safety more to be assured than theirs? If he's "protecting" why is he disarming them?
rk, perfect!
Be careful what you want, you just might get it. Where you get it, is the question. Wyoming House Bill 113 is a Trojan horse. The next s step is----the concealed weapons permit system will be abolished, NO longer will you be able to cross the state line legally. Just like the state of Vermont. Remember when the Governor tried to cut Wyoming's reciprocity down? This is another way to do it.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!