|
Post by avordvet on May 31, 2011 13:21:02 GMT -5
"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." - Bill of Rights Resist New Mexico Supreme Court Lets Cops Grab Guns During StopsSupreme Court allows police to take all firearms from law-abiding motorists during traffic stops.New Mexico Supreme CourtPolice officers in New Mexico can take guns away from drivers who pose no threat. The state supreme court ruled on May 20 that "officer safety" is more important than any constitutional rights a gun-owning motorist might have. The ruling was handed down in deciding the fate of Gregory Ketelson who was a passenger in a vehicle pulled over on November 13, 2008. During the stop, Hobbs Police Officer Miroslava Bleau saw a 9mm handgun on the back seat floorboard. Ketelson and the driver of the car were ordered out and away from the car while Officer Shane Blevins grabbed the gun. The officers later learned that Ketelson, as a convicted felon, could not legally possess a firearm. The court, however, only considered whether the officers acted properly in taking the gun before they had any reason to suspect Ketelson, who was entirely cooperative during the encounter, of committing a crime. Ketelson and the National Rifle Association argued that even a brief seizure of a firearm without cause violates fundamental, constitutionally protected rights. Ketelson also argued the gun could not have been taken without a search warrant, consent or exigent circumstances. A district court and the court of appeals agreed with this reasoning. State prosecutors countered that anyone with a gun ought to be considered "armed and dangerous" and thus the gun could be seized at any time. The high court agreed with this line of reasoning.... www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3494.asp
Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by jimbravo on May 31, 2011 22:27:02 GMT -5
Just saw that over at Western Rifle Shooters. Does anyone else sense a coordinated push? With all these court rulings in seperate states and SCOTUS eviscerating the Bill of Rights in favor of Law Enforcement Officers and their activities, it seems like it is getting piled higher and deeper.
I don't know how well this is going to work out for the cops. Folks were getting fed up before this carpet-bombing of Liberty.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jun 1, 2011 4:30:23 GMT -5
I don't know how well this is going to work out for the cops. Folks were getting fed up before this carpet-bombing of Liberty. Oh, I'm sure they know that once they step fully over the line, it will be on. But, the Socialists just can't help themselves. Right now chess pieces are being move around the board, So everyone needs to prepare and train themselves mentally and physically... Then refine your Preparation and increase your Training. The government is in the process of completely removing the Constitutional shackles that bind it, The Executive shirks the Constitution at will, Congress is almost irrelevant, the U.S. Judicial System is using international case law... the time is almost upon us where a hard decision will have to be made. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
|
|
|
Post by safetalker on Jun 1, 2011 13:49:14 GMT -5
The situation is that the police feel a need at every point to explain to the people that the safety of a Police Officer executing his job is of paramount importance. To make this bust cleaner they should have asked the two to exit the vehicle to make the police secure in their persons. Since they already had seen the gun in the normal occurrence of the stop and the supportive position of the second Officer. To ask who's weapon it was should have given them the needed excuse to check the passenger's identification. Then when he was identified as a felon the seizure of the weapon would have been covered. This again is another example of inexperienced Officers mudding the arrest due to poor procedures. PS: Go read the decision. It is not as the heading states. What was decided was that since the second Officer only secured a non-secured weapon in a car without proper tags he had not conducted an unauthorized search of the property. I am pretty sure if the weapon had been in a holster on the dash, or in the back seat where it was out of reach they would have held with the unreasonable search decision.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jun 1, 2011 15:25:59 GMT -5
The situation is that the police feel a need at every point to explain to the people that the safety of a Police Officer executing his job is of paramount importance. To make this bust cleaner they should have asked the two to exit the vehicle to make the police secure in their persons. Since they already had seen the gun in the normal occurrence of the stop and the supportive position of the second Officer. To ask who's weapon it was should have given them the needed excuse to check the passenger's identification. Then when he was identified as a felon the seizure of the weapon would have been covered. This again is another example of inexperienced Officers mudding the arrest due to poor procedures. PS: Go read the decision. It is not as the heading states. What was decided was that since the second Officer only secured a non-secured weapon in a car without proper tags he had not conducted an unauthorized search of the property. I am pretty sure if the weapon had been in a holster on the dash, or in the back seat where it was out of reach they would have held with the unreasonable search decision. Yeah, I saw some gun literature on your back seat, therefore you might be a gun owner and therefore may be armed... lets get you outta there, cuff you and give a little look over... for officer safety of course. Lets not be the one's watering the already slippery slope. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
|
|
|
Post by safetalker on Jun 1, 2011 16:32:24 GMT -5
I met a guy who showed me how to hold on to my rights. When I am stopped I know that my "reservation of rights" are on file in the county Courthouse. That document was filed for notice so that every one in my City, County, and State governments would understand that I don't consent to adhesion contracts in accordance with 1-308 of the UCC. When the Officer asks me to step out of the vehicle I ask him "Am I being detained or arrested?" He of course will state "No". My response is; ' them why must I get out of my Vehicle. Is there an emergency?" When he responds "No" I ask then why are you asking me to do it? Usually by then he has had a chance to think this out more carefully. I never refuse. I just keep asking questions. There can be no "Disturbance" if I don't refuse unless he is out of control. Just in case my cell phone is recording. If I am threatened I will comply, but will explain to the Officer: "Are you aware that I charge a fee for my time when I am arrested?" He normally stops at this point and ask what I mean. My response is: 'When I am arrested, and you have arrested my travel, I charge $10.00 per hour in Circa 1789 US dollars." "The current silver rate is $46.00 per gram of Silver and $1398.00 per Gram of Gold.' His response is so who pays? I respond "I bill the (City/County/State) but if this is determined to be an illegal stop they may ask you to help pay" This will get a supervisor and as soon as they call in and the "Reservations of Rights" show up on my records they can't wait or me to leave after assuring me that I was 'Never arrested". Most people stopped go into either ass kissing or a tantrum. Just be nice.
|
|
|
Post by lumpy39us on Jun 1, 2011 17:00:51 GMT -5
Safetalker, That was a really interesting post, did some research. Not really sure what to think of it though, but very nice none the less. Good reply!
|
|